And the moral of the story is: <P>1. Live a decent life. <P>2. Don't pass out drunk at unseemly parties. <P>3. Don't voluntarily give your sperm to amoral women. <P>4. Don't have sex unless you are married to your sex partner and are willing to support a child. <P>5. Get advance agreement with your spouse on pregnancy and birth control issues and realize that anything, including sterilization can fail.<P>6. If you didn't do the above, deal with it.<P>7. If your spouse didn't do the above and you don't like it, divorce him/her, ... or live with it and stop moaning about unfairness. All evil is unfair. Life is unfair. God is fair. <P>Wrong is wrong. Sexual immorality is wrong because it hurts children. Hurts adults too, but the heartbreaking stories of innocent children are more poignant.<P>Please note: YOUR proposed laws will just victimize others! Nothing is without consequence.<BR><P>------------------<BR>A true friend is one who not only is willing to love us the way we are, but is able to leave us better than he found us.

I just love it when betrayers preach about immorality.<P>If you have not been in the situation you have no idea how you would handle it. <P><p>[This message has been edited by TMD (edited May 11, 2000).]

Good points Karenna!

The only time I have ever had sex outside of marriage was the five times I was intimate during my affair. I never will let it happen again.<P>Popeye a woman can't give a child up for adoption if the father doesn't consent. So there is no forced adoption. What you seem to want is the woman to give up the child for adoption just because the father wants to. Well what about the times where the father wants the child? The woman should just be able to give it up anyway? That's not how the law is. You know not all laws are right. The fact that a woman can have an abortion without the fathers consent is not right. Both partners should have to consent to an abortion just like they do for an adoption. And I don't agree with you that just because one partner says give the kid away that partner should be able to walk away from any financial responsibility. Both partners must agree to adoption by law. Bystander it's also pretty weird to think that you can be raped and end up pregnant. And that happens I'll bet about a zillion times more than the situations you are talking about. Think about that one for a while. Women have lived with it for a long time. I still say that if two people have sex one partner, the man or the woman has no right to demand that the other partner do anything with holding financial support for ransom to force the decision! That is wrong. Men and women know what happens when they have sex. Popeye your husband knew very well what could happen when he chose to have sex outside his marriage. It was his choice and now he has to deal with what has happened. We can't just all walk away from the fallout of our bad choices.<P>Del

Hey, I never screwed around on my husband. Not that infatuation with an OM is exactly moral, but I did exert self control and end it. Holding hands doesn't get even me pregnant!! <P>I've been pregnant quite enough to know the difference in consequences to males and females of an unintended pregnancy. I've had FOUR of those. Forgive me, but the situation is inherently UNEQUAL!!!!

With regard to those rare instances where a mentally competent adult male is raped, as well as when a male child is raped or a mentally incompetent man is raped: Seems to me the operative word here is rape. Though women <I>have</I> been successfully prosecuted for rape, including holding a weapon on a man to facilitate his being raped by other men, in some states the law refuses to recognise the rape of males by females at all. The assumption that this is not a real crime is stupid. This is the basic fault with the decisions in the cases cited. Women accused and convicted of perpetrating rape should suffer the same consequences as male rapists. Serious jail time and the loss of parental rights seem right at the top of the list. If the victim wants to assert parental rights, let him. if not, the child is placed in foster care and made available for adoption. This should be handled just as might happen if the rape victim were female. I know that it's a rotten thing to do to the child, but a rape victim should not be held responsible for any child resulting from the rape. Should the child be left with a rapist (would we do that if the rapist were male), or with a strictly biological parent who is, I believe quite reasonably, resentful of the child and who has no inclination to care for it? This seems one of those (albeit rare)instances where it is the duty of society (that is all of us)to provide for the child.<P><BR>Having lived in the vicinity throughout and so having been inundated with information about the Mary Kay LeTourneau/Vili Fualaau insanity, I've concluded that there are some hard questions about statutory rape of boys. - She's unquestionably an absolute nutter and it's hard to accept that this particular male was forced to create <I>two</I> children. Though I understand and generally agree with the concept that an adult, particularly one in a position of real authority over a child has real power over that child. Therefore, when that authority is abused it is particularly heinous. However, there comes a point when one has to truly examine what was done of his own volition. The fact that his own mother pretty much condones the whole thing raises another big red flag. There's a lot of responsibility to be shared by a lot of folks in this tragedy. BTW, Fualaau and the two children live with his mother, they were not forced into adoption.)<P>All that said, I still do not believe that competent, consenting adult men should be allowed to walk away from pregnancies and children they create. (And I can't even entertain in any serious fashion that, well, gosh, he believed her when she said she was on the pill! If YOU don't want kids it's up to YOU to not make 'em. And if you trust contraceptives, you better count on this time being in that 1% that is the lowest failure rate even when used properly and then maybe you'll think a little harder about whether this little tryst is worth it.) As long as women get pregnant and men don't the notion of reproductive equality is moot. Women will always have to deal with being pregnant and giving birth, men never will. That puts them in entirely different positions and necessitates different rights and responsibilities. Men have a choices. And if at the the crucial moment they decide they are going to play, they have to play by the rules. At this point, virtually everyone understands those rules. When we grow up enough to be playing adult games like sex and adultery and gambling, we start calling the rules Laws. You can't start whining, "No fair!" cause you lost the bet. In fact the whole gambling analogy holds pretty well. If you know the rules are stacked against you and you play and you lose you don't get to just pick up everything you walked in with and go home. And it's not even remotely unfair. You knew the game was dangerous when you sat down to play.<P>Popeye, I'm right with you when it comes to needing support orders to be reasonable, equitable, and fair. These decisions need to be founded in reality. Things like, how much does it actually take to rear a child; how much the NC parent makes and needs to support self, spouse, and any pre-existing children; real-life; these things should be considered.<P>Before I go into my next item, let me state that I have been a recipient of public assistance. I believe that since the state can collect more in child support than the state pays for the child, and more recipents themselves receive, the additional should be administered specifically for the benefit of the child or, better still held in trust until the child reaches the age of majority. I also believe that the each parent should be liable for 50% of the grant money paid, that the responsibility should not rest exclusively with the father. Once her grant is ended, up to 50% of the mother's gross earnings or other income, without regard for her need, should be garnisheed for back support if she refuses to pay, just as they do with fathers. (Hey, my husband was deathly ill and unable to care for himself at all let alone work and he, our daughter, and I were existing on $600/month in unemployment compensation. There was back support due, partly for our daughter. The State of Washington decided it was good to take 50% of the UC for back child support. It was in our daughter's best interests, and that of the tax-payers, of course. The fact that they were taking food out of her real-live mouth was not even a topic for discussion.) Also, 100% of any tax refunds due to her or to her and her spouse if they file jointly should be intercepted. And up to 100% of her estate.<P>Man, this is a twisty-turny topic.<p>[This message has been edited by dragantraces (edited May 12, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karenna:<BR><B>And the moral of the story is: <P>3. Don't voluntarily give your sperm to amoral women. <P>5. Get advance agreement with your spouse on pregnancy and birth control issues and realize that anything, including sterilization can fail.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with this, but this is not the argument. The argument is that women have choices as to what to do if a poor choice is initially made. Men do not. Your morals of the story do not include incidences of rape, deception, mental incompetence, and other things where a conscious choice was not made. <P>If a man believes his partner to be sterile and bases his lack of protection on her words, he is not willingly participating in conception. He trusts his partner. Your words would have every man looking out for himself and trusting no one. That is sad. THAT is not the real world. <P>If a marriage is on the rocks and the wife thinks that having a child would make things better, but the H wouldn't knowingly agree to that because he sees no way out, don't you think informed consent would save that child a world of grief?<P>My God people! You talk about what is best for the child. What is best for the child is that he/she have two parents who WANT him. <P>Let's assume men were given choice. By focusing on the abortion issue, you are <BR>assuming all pregnancies would result in abortion and you are challenging their right to make a legal choice. By focusing on the child support issue, you are getting way ahead of yourselves. If there was no child, there would be no child support. By focusing on the welfare issue, you are assuming any resulting child will end up on welfare (maybe not) and that the mother is irresponsible in providing for the child. Is that the kind of mother you want having children anyway? By minimizing adoption, you are forgetting that there are lots of people who would love to have a child of their own and CHOOSE parenthood. By providing informed choice to both parents, you have an established plan ahead of time about what each person's role is to be in that child's life. THAT is in the best interest of the child. <P>For those of you who think it is an escape route for fathers, I don't see you complaining that women have that option. I would feel trapped if I knew that if I conceived while on birth control, through rape or deception that I HAD to have that child, provide for it for the rest of my life and have that man in my life for the rest of my life. That is the kind of situation you are supporting. What kind of family is that?<P>Not all accidental or unplanned pregnancies would end in the father renouncing responsibility. I am sure that sometimes it is a blessing and makes the couple realize that they belong together. But it's not our choice to make. People ought to have the freedom to decide when to become parents and with whom. It is not as simple as saying "Well just don't do it then." <P>If it was your 13 year old daughter who was pregnant, would you MAKE her have a child with a 25 year old man? What about a 13 year old boy? Come on! There are lots of scenarios. You can't make a blanket statement that in all cases it pregnancy was chosen by the nature of the two people being together. You can't make a blanket statement that those people need to just grow up and deal with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Delphi:<BR><B>Popeye, What you seem to want is the woman to give up the child for adoption just because the father wants to. Well what about the times where the father wants the child? The woman should just be able to give it up anyway? </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have not proposed to make any decisions for the couple involved. I simply said they should have a choice in what happens. If the woman wants to have the child, she should be able to have the child, but she would do so knowing that the man does/does not want to be involved and will/will not support it by being there and with his money.<P>If the couple want to give the child up for adoption, you are right, that should be a mutual decision.<P>If the man wants it and the woman doesn't, I say it's the woman's body. She can have it or not have it. She can give him the child and walk away.<P>The point is, I feel it is in the best interest of the child to have parents in agreement over what children they create together. None of this has anything to do with existing children. Do you want to deprive existing children? Do you want to kill existing children? Let's be real.<P><BR><B> The fact that a woman can have an abortion without the fathers consent is not right. Both partners should have to consent to an abortion just like they do for an adoption.[b][/quote]<P>Now here is one area where I think biology does play a factor. How can you MAKE someone carry a child? That is a huge imposition on someone that doesn't want it.<P>[b] And I don't agree with you that just because one partner says give the kid away that partner should be able to walk away from any financial responsibility. </B>[/QUOTE]<P>I don't agree that because one partner says, "I am having this kid whether you like it or not" that the other should be liable for life for child support and parenting. <P>It's a selfish thing to have a child in situations where both parents can't or don't want to be actively and financially involved. Anyone who would bring a child into the world under those conditions is, in my opinion, self centered, manipulative, and unfit.

Popeye,<P>I don't think that just because someone has an unplanned pregnancy and decides not to give the baby up they are selfish and unfit! I think you would have a lot of single mothers out there that have children who would tell you that is not so in any way for them. Two people have sex knowing what the outcome might be. The only choice that the woman has that the man doesn't is abortion. Adoption has to be agreed to by both of them. I think that what you are saying is that if two grown adults agree to have sex knowing what the posibilities are in terms of pregnancy and there is a pregnancy then one should be able to demand that the other have an abortion or give up the baby or they will not help financially. And then they should be legally able to walk away. And if the woman or the man if we are talking about adoption doesn't do as the party who wants to avoid dealing with the outccome of their actions wants then they are selfish and unfit. For many women, and I am one abortion is plain and simple not an option. It may be a legal choice but slavery was once legal too and not all people owned slaves. To me it would be like being ordered to murder a child. That is my deep personal view. I could never have an abortion even if I was raped. So if I have sex with a man who later says if I end up pregnant, hey I don't want to take any responsibility here! Then my only choice is adoption and if for whatever reason I don't choose this because this is what the man wants then I am selfish and unfit. I just can't agree with this. <P>Not all children come from two parent families. My cousin had a baby out of wedlock when she was 18. She decided to keep it. The father was never involved but did have to pay child support. My nephew is now in his second year at the Coast Guard Academy! He has a wonderful relationship with his mother and he loves her very much. And she's the most unselfish person I have known. She sacrificed alot to give him what he needed. <P>I think there is no way we are going to agree on this one. And I have decided to write my legislator which I have never done before to ask him not to support this male rights. That is how strongly I feel about this.<P>Del