Wanted to get you guys' opinions

[Guest]

[FONT=Arial]Hey, I know this sort of has to do with framing, but I am going to post it her anyway. I recently got into a sort of debate in one of my classes, and luckily it was posted online so I copy and paste it and analyze it.

It was a non-formal debate over a couple of cases we had to go over in class and if you were so inclined, I was wondering if ya'll might, or would take a look and tell me what I did right, where I went wrong, where I could improve, etc... I trust you guys more than my instructor or any of the liberal broads in my class. BTW, I also happen to be the only guy in this class... sadly this was the only "lady" that responded.

I'll post this in an I said: She said, manner. I also want to preface this with a general background of the cases we went over... NE v Hedges and Dubay v. Wells challenged, unsuccessfully, that men should have a right to "opt" out of parentage just as a women has. You can find the posture of the cases here: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells"]Dubay[/URL]

[/FONT][QUOTE=ME][FONT=Arial]I am just curious as to what people think about the N.E. v. Hedges and the Dubay v. Wells cases we just went over and perhaps entice debate/discussion. Being the only man in this course, I'll probably get hammered for this. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Keep in mind, we are not talking morals or beliefs we are talking applicable laws that outline societies morals. Black and white. Which is after all what law is. I am not talking about whether or not you believe in abortion or not. I am not talking about whether or not a divorce should have ever happened to cause half these problems. It doesn't matter. We have a few choices.
1) Fix the family law system and make divorce a little harder to obtain in which we can then assign blame and "punish" those that have broken societies fundamental morals that curbed these problems, i.e. pregnancy out of wedlock, no-fault divorces, etc or
2) grant equal protection under the law for both sexes. We currently have an archaic system that is trying to force old world values and traditions on a different world, such as the male provider stereotype.

So we either need to go back to a type of old system or we need to grant the same protection to the millions of single fathers out there. To continue to disregard the fact that millions are being discriminated against is akin to ignoring the civil rights movement of the 60's and the women's right movement of the 20's. Society has said time and time again, that Equality for all is of the utmost importance in our society. I doubt any of us disagree with this. So, in the spirit of equality of protection of the law for all, here goes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I personally think that society and men have no more of a right to force a woman to have a child she didn't want, than women and society have to force a man to support a child he didn't want. I think we can all agree on the fact that this is an assessment of equality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]
Meaning that lets just say a man had his same parental rights to the fetus. The rights that are guaranteed him by traditional paternity suits. By in large, his rights should be much like that of the woman’s right when there, is instead, a fetus then. The law does not give a man rights until AFTER the child is born. But lets just say that a man has "fetal rights", (note that there have been some cases where a man has petition for these rights where a woman cannot abort the fetus), and that these rights are just like a woman’s. He can choose, abortion (of sorts), adoption, or to have it. Keep in mind I am not talking about after the child is born, I am talking about a fetus. If a man had rights to the fetus, he should not be able to make the woman have it just because he wants it. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]When a woman becomes pregnant, she has choices, Like McCulley states: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT][QUOTE=McCulley][FONT=Arial][FONT="]'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.[/FONT][/FONT][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]
Dubay v. Wells and N.E. v. Hedges, are predicated on the fact that there is no basis in current law where a man does not or has never been made to provide for his progeny and they are clear to point out that after the child is born, the man has a obliged "duty" to support it. I not only think this is erroneous but extremely unequal. That's like saying, blacks are equal and can vote, but they won't have any say in how they are governed and their votes don't really count. Likewise for women for that matter. The current structure tells men, "This is what you will do and you have no say in it."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]So, a father should have certain fetal rights. Ones such as the mother has, abortion, adoption, and having it. Here are the examples of the possible outcomes:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Mother wants it, Father doesn't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Father wants it, mother doesn't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Mother and father both want it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Neither mother and father want it. [/FONT]

[LIST]
[*][FONT=Arial]If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't... what happens? Right now, the father is railroaded into supporting it anyway. The fathers have no rights before birth to disassociate from the child like the mother has and the courts have made it clear that, once the child is born the father is stuck like chuck. [/FONT]
[/LIST]
[INDENT][INDENT][FONT=Arial]Side Note: Currently if you ran the numbers, it takes approximately $16 an hour to by able to live WITH A ROOMATE on your own, and still afford traditional "support orders" of 20% of your income, medical coverage and 50% of what insurance doesn't cover. And that's just to be able to barely survive and maintain a vehicle and still live with a roommate. We are literally making millions of Fathers live in poverty solely because the welfare of the child comes first. What about the father who is trying to better themselves FOR their children? In this system, unless they have outside help it's virtually impossible. Name one program designed for single fathers who do not have custody. /end rant/ [/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Arial]Just like the McCulley statement above, a woman has the luxury to determine whether of not she is stable enough. The problem is though, her decision is most often predicated on what support she will get out of the father through child support. And with massive government programs designed to help her do everything else on McCulley's list she has no incentive not to have a kid, hell half the time she'll come out financially better, the quality of life won't necessarily increase, but most times if you are a single mother you won't have to worry about much, food, shelter, clothing, home phone (coming soon - internet) etc.. hell we should all be so lucky. [/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Arial][FONT="]Side Note: I would like to note here that curbing this inequality problem would likely reduce the amount of out of wedlock pregnancies by reducing the amount of support for these circumstances, more women would likely decided not to have a child or put it up for adoption, or abstain from sex all together. Again, I know it's easy to get into a moral dilemma here, but really law is about equality across the board. As much as we all like to pretend men and women are the same, only a woman can get pregnant. So ultimately it's up to her on whether she get's pregnant or not. [/FONT][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Arial]So, we give fetal rights to the father, and the father now has the opportunity to answer the above questions for himself. (After all that's what this discussion is about). He can now, "abort" the child, basically give up his rights and decline support, or put it up for adoption. [/FONT]
[/INDENT]
[LIST]
[*][FONT=Arial]What if the father wants it and the mother doesn't? Well, that is very interesting. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/22/nyregion/man-sues-wife-on-abortion-done-without-his-knowing.html?pagewanted=1"][COLOR=blue]Click here for men suing women over abortions.[/COLOR][/URL] This argument is still being raised and going by the article, at least one court has already ruled a man does have fetal rights. The main argument here is whether or not a woman can be made to have a child she doesn't want. The humane thing to do here would be to allow the fathers to instead of try and gain their rights through pre-birth fetal laws, to gain their equal law protection of the law in post birth ways...[/FONT]
[/LIST]
[INDENT][INDENT][FONT=Arial]Side note: The fairness would then be even, a man and society couldn't tell a woman to have the child, and the woman and society couldn't tell a man to support it, except in one regard. If the woman wanted to have an abortion, and the man didn't the man would then be at a biological disadvantage, and would have no fetal rights.[/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Arial][FONT="]...but the courts have shot this in the foot by ruling the way they did in the N.E. and Dubay cases. Now, the argument has to be made that men should have right's pre-birth since the courts have said the men don't have a say after the child is born. [/FONT][/FONT]
[/INDENT]
[LIST]
[*][FONT=Arial]If both parents want it... well, then you have the current system. Nothing to be changed.[/FONT]
[*][FONT=Arial]If Neither parent wants’ it... they only have to decide whether to abort or put up for adoption. Nothing to be changed. [/FONT]
[/LIST]
[FONT=Arial]Instead of acknowledging the situation and the ability to set precedent, the courts muffed up and now, women are on the verge of possibly being told what they are to do about their bodies regarding abortion. At this point, [FONT="]I would also like to point out, that this situation could potentially over turn Roe v. Wade in part. Since the courts are forcing Father's rights advocates to challenge the pre-birth rights instead of post-birth rights, they are essentially re-negging on Roe v. Wade's decision that a woman is free to do with her body as she wishes. After all, if a man has a legal right to the fetus, she can't very well do with her body as she pleases. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
I know I'm not a judge or an attorney yet, but these are just some things that I noticed while working on the previous 2 assignments and i was interested to know how everyone else felt. I'm sure, that you are able to figure out my position. [/FONT]
[/QUOTE][FONT=Arial]

[/FONT][QUOTE=Her][FONT=Arial]I think a man and woman should have equal rights before and after the birth of a child. I am speaking of reasonable people of legal age.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]In terms of rights after the birth of a child, in my opinion, the bottom line is, any reasonable adult knows that a possible result of sex is pregnancy. So no one should be able to say things like “She told me she couldn’t get pregnant” or “He said he had a vasectomy” to get out of taking responsibility for a child they conceived. I believe the law, pertaining to a baby after birth, should hold both parents financially responsible – period.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]In terms of rights before birth, I think if either parent wants the child an abortion should not be allowed and the other parent should have to take financial responsibility due to the reasons stated above. If a man wants the baby, I don’t think a woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy unless there is a medical reason (pertaining to her health) to do so. I think she should have to carry the child to term and allow the father to have the child he wants. That fetus is a woman’s AND a man’s. I don’t think she should have all the power just because she happens to be the one who carries the baby. I think a woman saying it’s “her body” is selfish. There is a father involved, not to mention grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. on the father’s side. I wonder how a woman would feel if the situation was reversed and she was powerless to stop a man from terminating a pregnancy in a situation where she wants the baby or doesn't believe in abortion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Brandon - As for some of your opinions, side notes, and rants, I was so angry after reading your post that I was shaking. I’m not going to get into all my personal beliefs but I would like to know…do you actually know any single mothers? Let me just say this much…I have known single mothers and I have personally been in the situation of being separated from my husband for a period of time and living as a single mother. None of us had rich exes or were on welfare. We were just average people. None of us were living well while the fathers were “living in poverty”. We all had full time jobs and were not depending on the government and baby’s father for financial support. It is a struggle for both sides. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]
[/QUOTE][FONT=Arial]

[/FONT][QUOTE=ME][FONT=Arial]I’m sorry I angered you. That was not my intent, so perhaps this will show you what I am talking about in a less detestable way. I would very much like to hear your side.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]My sources follow the information they provided.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]What is considered poverty?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [B][U]Poverty[/U][/B][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [URL]http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Health Care deductible - $1000+ for “families”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][URL]http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st209/stat209.pdf[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Utility Bill in Dallas(lowest) – $301 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][URL]http://www.whitefenceindex.com/[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Car Payment - $479 “[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]In the United States, the average down payment for a car is $2,400, the average amount financed is $24,864 and the average monthly payment is $479”[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][URL]http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/ABCsForAGreatCarLoan.aspx[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Rent or Mortgage - $841[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][URL]http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Health Insurance Premium $402.33 I used the Single rate from 09’ [URL]http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Car Insurance Premium - $45 a month from 37 sample rates[/FONT]
[CENTER][CENTER][FONT=Arial][FONT="]ELLIS 75154 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]Car[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]To & From Work[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]Single[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]Male[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]Age 25-65[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]No Violations[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]Average[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT="]50/100/50[/FONT][/FONT][/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[FONT=Arial][URL]http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/webinfo/onlserv9.html[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Average Grocery Bill 19- 50yo male $155- [URL]http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2007/CostofFoodAug07.pdf[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
In this example I’ll use a man since most often that is who the non-custodial parent is usually. All examples below use my sources above for figures.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]A man makes $16 an hour and works 40 hours a week. It comes out to $640 a week before taxes, or $33,280 a year. This puts him in the 15% bracket and then we add on 7% for Medicare and Social Security, which all totaled comes to $7,321.60. Which means his net income is $25,958.40. He can deduct the expense for health insurance off of this amount in order to figure child support, so we take the average monthly health premium mentioned above times by twelve ($4,827.96) and subtract from the remainder of his income, which comes to $21,130.44. He can now pay 20% child support on this amount, which is $4,226.09, and this brings the total to $16,904.35. Now let’s pay all of his base living expenses. Unless you live in a city with access to mass transit, you have to have a vehicle. After all it is basically un-American to not own one and not only that how are you supposed to pick up the child if you can’t get to it? Even if you own one out right you have to keep up maintenance and save for when the wheels fall off, so we’ll say this is a flat $479 a month, not including insurance and it comes to $5748 a year. This brings our gentleman’s income to $11,156.35. Now let’s subtract $540 for car insurance ($45x12months)(which isn’t even full coverage so if he wrecks his car he doesn’t get a new one, the one quoted is slightly above Texas mandatory), $1,560 ($30x52 weeks) for fuel and our total is, $9,056.35. That covers the car. Now his food, I happen to disagree with what they say the average is, but let’s use their figures, $35 a week per person per year is $1,820. And he is left with $7,236.35. Now I happen to know, that $841 a month on rent is a bit steep for this area, so we’ll figure $599 based on rental rates I know, in Ellis County. ($599x12months) comes to $7,188, without renters insurance and leaves him with $48.38. Now let’s factor in electricity and water… hmm, ok let’s back up. Maybe if he has a roommate. Rent will go up a little, let’s say $650 a month for a 2 bedroom. $325 per person plus utilities and let’s leave water off since most apartments pay for water. The new total’s come out to, $3,900 a year, and leaves him with $3,336.35. Subtract the halved utility bill, now, I would crap a brick if my utility bill was that high, so let’s say the bill is only $50 a month for his part (12 monthsx$50) and it comes to $2,600 leaving him with a total of $736.35.. a year.. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
How is he going to pay the 50% of what insurance doesn’t cover? The deductible alone is $1000 and he is responsible for half of it. Plus the prescription co-pays and dentists, eye exams, etc. And what all is this guy supposed to do when he does have time with his child? He doesn’t exactly have a lot of free money to spend. By my calculations, if he paid only his half of the deductible he would have $236.35 left throughout the year to spend on his child or roughly $20 a month out of the $2,163.20 he brought home. What happens if something major happens and can’t be paid by $20 a month and must be paid in full upfront? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Keep in mind these figures only include a possible savings if you own the car, but even then, eventually you will have to use that money to either repair or replace it. There is no room for error in any other aspect. There are 2 programs that I have found that a man can possibly sign up for, and that is Food stamps and the section 8 housing. Sadly though, our guy above makes too much to qualify for those programs since he only makes $16 an hour. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Suppose he gets sick and can’t work. What happens then? He only gets partial wages. Suppose he does wreck his car before he’s saved up enough to replace it? What happens to his child’s view of him when it finds out that he can’t provide the “life of luxury” it’s used to getting from mom? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
He either has to work more hours, get a raise or find a second job in order to just live by himself and that’s if he can find a first job that will pay him $16 an hour. There are virtually no educational programs for single fathers besides pell grant. But in the above scenario, the guy couldn’t even qualify for the program (or pell) if there was one because he already makes too much, and would have to finance his education on his own. Which brings us to a loop, he can’t quit one of his jobs to go to school because then he couldn’t afford to support himself. He simply has no way to better himself for his child in the current system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Add to all of this, that in Ellis County, you have a judge who refuses to rule that the custodial parent is to share half of the earned income credit with the non-custodial parent and that the non custodial parent can’t claim child support on their taxes and you have a broken system. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I’m sorry, but it doesn’t take 20% to raise a child. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
A list of added necessary items a child needs includes: food, education and clothing. If the parents and the families would work together as they should be doing, then daycare shouldn’t be a problem. The parents need to structure their lives around the child, and sadly that means considering the other parent when deciding to change anything in your life. The problem comes into effect when you have the person who has custody trying to disassociate their entire life from their Ex when the Ex wants to be a part of the child’s life. Until that child is 18, their lives are entangled and unfortunately for men they were the ones most often caught on the butt end of societies plight to end all child poverty and discomfort. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]We need to stop trying to solve all our problems by throwing money at them. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
It is also important to note that the before mentioned poverty level means jack since poverty is relative. With the exception of the car payment, I feel these figures I have used are almost all under estimated. How one defiines living well is a subjective matter, but as I outlined above a single father, paying the standard court ordered child support, that makes $16 an hour can barely afford to support himself. This whole thing becomes less of an issue the more the non-custodial makes. But $16 an hour I feel is baseline for barely being able to support yourself, and even then you have to rely on a roommate. If you compare the level of income for this man after child support and taxes, to the world stage, he is about on the same income level as an average family from, Equatorial Guinea, Latvia or the Netherlands. [URL="http://www.dallaslair.com/forum/disabled-url:%20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_PPP_per_capita"]Source[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
Sometimes what’s best for the child is what is best for the non-custodial parent. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have never had a custodial parent explain to me how the above is justified or adequately explained how 20% is warranted, provided the non-custodial parent is actually working with the custodial one in order to raise their child. All of this is of course moot if the non-custodial just wants to spend time with the child but doesn’t want to help support it. I do know single mothers, usually I get into discussions like these with them that end up with them yelling at me because I; “Have no idea what they go through.” Or “Their father is a deadbeat. What do you know?” Or “Who are you to question me?” or any other myriad of slurs. I have 3 single mothers that come to mind who are all on government aid and have at least 3 kids, and sit at home. One of them has multiple vehicles. Another one refers lovingly to the males she copulates with as “sperm donors” because you can, “get more money from the government if you say you don’t know who the father is.” In short, the single mothers I know all seem to just want to get something free from someone. Of course, I know not all women are like that and I am with one of those now. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
My whole point to the above is, this is what one has to consider BEFORE having a child out of wedlock and in separate families. The man above, in today’s system, has no choice in the matter. He is told to just “Suck it up.” Or “Be a man.” Or “What, you can enjoy all that she has to offer but you can’t take care of what comes out?” Which is totally misguided to assume one is not, in fact, being a man, whatever that means and for other reasons which are a completely different topic. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
I still say that if less support were available to single parents, there would be less single parents. I feel as it stands, we are fostering single-parenthood and that is not something to be proud of. We are destroying our families and our non-custodial parents at the same time and that men primarily are discriminated against. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]It’s interesting you say that if one wants it, then the other should be made to pay for their [half]. The interesting part to me is not if the woman wants it, but if the man wants it. She should be made to carry it to term. How would that look legally? What ramifications do you suspect would happen to a law of that magnitude? And why do you feel the other parent who didn’t want it should be made to support it? Does it mirror anything I posted in the previous post I made?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]
I need to clarify something, when I said, 'Daycare shouldn't be a problem' I was referring to the child being cared for by the other parent while the other is working. Or by family, etc[/FONT]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Her][FONT=Calibri]Brandon, I’ll tell you now; I’m probably no match for you in an argument. That’s why I’m becoming a paralegal, not a lawyer [/FONT][FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT][FONT=Calibri]. And I don’t have time to look up statistics and sources. So I’m just speaking from experience and my own personal beliefs. My husband feels the same way you do about the child support situation as far as what a man is required to pay. He says it does not take that much to provide ½ the support of a child. We get into this argument occasionally. I do see his point to an extent but I really think it depends on the situation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Here’s a real, not hypothetical situation. If my husband and I divorced, in order to stay in my house, and keep the kids in the situation they are in now, if I continued to work full time at the same job I have, I would need the 25% of his paycheck that he would be ordered to pay for two kids. If he had 25% taken out of his monthly check plus insurance for the kids he would still have enough money for a 1-bedroom apartment (living alone) and his monthly bills. Neither of us would have extra money but neither of us would be living in poverty. We would both be in the same situation financially. This is a normal situation where I’m not trying to take advantage of him and he’s taking financial responsibility. But he would have time to go back to school or get a second job. I cannot go any further than my Associate’s degree because no 4-year State college offers online courses for Bachelor’s degrees. In fact, I wouldn’t even get my Associate’s because I wouldn’t have time to do the internship required (I don’t even have time NOW). I could not get a second job either. I’m not trying to complain, I’m trying to make the point that in the average situation where nobody’s rich and nobody’s on welfare, both parents come out about the same financially. You really don’t understand how much it costs to raise a child – it’s more than just food, education, and clothing. The children deserve to be able to participate in extra-curricular activities, which cost money (a lot if they are young and not playing for school teams). Usually the custodial parent must live in a larger space than the non-custodial parent (Why should the custodial parent have to absorb all those costs alone?). There are medical expenses, daycare expenses, and school expenses. Even if the parents are working together, which they should do, if both parents work full time day jobs and no one you trust to watch your child can provide free childcare, it’s not an option to have to pay for it – and it’s expensive.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I do understand men getting upset feeling like they can’t get ahead and because the more they make, the more child support they pay but it’s not just about what is necessary. It’s also about the children living an equivalent lifestyle to the one they were accustomed to. Why would a man want his children to live beneath him economically? I think too many men get mad thinking “Why should I have to support my ex” instead of “My children deserve all that I can give them”. When a man is married, he provides for his family and gives his kids everything. Why do they all of a sudden not care how their kids live when they aren’t with the mother anymore? If men don’t want to pay child support, why don’t they actually get involved in raising the kids instead of expecting the mother to have all the responsibility and still expect her to better her life so they don’t have to pay as much? A mother with primary custody can’t realistically go to school or get a second job unless she never wants to see her kids and can afford to have someone watch them that much. Kids don’t just need money, they need their parent’s time. If fathers had joint custody, they wouldn’t have to pay as much, if anything. With all that being said, I definitely think there is a limit to what is reasonable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I don’t know any women like the ones you referred to who are on government aid, have at least 3 kids, and sit at home but I know there are women like that out there and it’s WRONG. It’s not fair to the children, the fathers of those children, or taxpayers who are supporting those women. There absolutely should be laws put in place to deter women from having children out of wedlock. I think all government assistance should be temporary and only available if you are trying to help yourself. But it’s not set up that way. When my husband and I were separated back in 2002, I had an infant son, I worked full time and made $12/hr and I didn’t qualify for any government assistance (WIC, daycare assistance, housing assistance). My son qualified for CHIPS (health insurance) for 6 months until they changed the laws where we didn’t qualify for that either. It infuriated me because I felt like the government wasn’t willing to help me if I was trying to help myself. In my experience, they only help you if you do nothing to help yourself, which is the problem. Anyway, I still say men (or women) should not be able to get out of supporting children they created - period. Most men know through friends or family or the media that it takes a lot of money to support a child even if they don’t have one yet. Like I said before, any reasonable adult knows that a possible consequence of sex is pregnancy. If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex or take every precaution you possibly can. Don’t depend on the other person to be on birth control or believe them when they say they can’t have kids. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]In your first post, you were considering each situation that could be presented including if a man wants the child and the woman doesn’t. That’s why I gave my opinion about what the law should be regarding that situation. I don’t know what the ramifications would be if a law were passed forcing a woman to have a baby if a man wanted it (again, I’m not interested in being a lawyer). I just don’t think it’s right. It’s not equality for men. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I guess my main stance on the issue is that everyone knows how a baby is created so if you are going to do what creates a baby, you should have to take responsibility if a baby is created – man or woman. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I know much of this is getting into personal opinions and not legal ideas but you can’t expect to bring up a subject this sensitive to almost everyone and not think emotions will interfere. These are just my humble opinions. You raise good points and I respect your opinions. I’m just trying to offer a viewpoint from a normal woman who if I were in the situation of needing child support, would not lay back and live off the government and my ex. But I would need his help and he should be responsible for the children he helped bring into this world. [/FONT]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Me]Bambi, I thank you for your assessment but I feel you may give me more credit than I deserve.

I hope to be able to respond to your post at length shortly, but recently when the 12 inches of snow came my power was knocked out for several days and I am still playing catch up. So, sadly, this conversation has been placed on hold. I have not forgotten though.

I have much to say about my position on the matter though, but, perhaps, for now this video might help clarify my position on freedom, choice, and liberties.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I[/URL][/QUOTE]

I had to get caught up on my assignments... so after about 11 days, I responded with:

[QUOTE=Me][FONT=Calibri]Bambi
[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I have to disagree with you here. I think I do understand. I think you may be over extending what a child’s “rights” or entitlements are. They are no more entitled to extracurricular activities or their own room than you or I am entitled to go to happy hour or have our own house. It’s natural we all want what’s best for our children, but all of the stuff we are talking about is essentially at the crux of the 2 cases we just went over. These are the decisions that must be made [U]before[/U] having a child. I personally don’t want to live like they did when they were first exploring the west. But by what right are custodial parents entitled to a larger residence? What happened to living within your means? You are responsible for putting a roof over your head, thus the child will have a roof over theirs. There is nothing wrong with living in a one bedroom. Its how Americans did it centuries before. It’s called living within your means. If the non-custodial parent wants to opt in and pay for a bigger place so that way their child will have their own bedroom, then so be it, but it shouldn’t be automatically factored in. Houses used to have only 1 bathroom in the not so distant past. We all want better for ourselves and our children, but we shouldn’t create this sense of entitlement and feeling of failure if we don’t achieve it at the expense of non-custodial parents in the process. A woman has the right to opt out of parenthood in lieu of the answer to these issues, all I am saying is shouldn’t a man have that same right? [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]As far as a non-hypothetical situation, let’s just say the guy I hypothesized about above was named Brandon Simpson. Because that was me for the first year to year and a half of my daughters life, I have had to do things that are probably illegal, that shouldn’t be, just to get to where I am now all because these laws and this system is set up the way it is. And the really crappy part is this will all more than likely affect my child in a negative way at first. But like I said before, I’m not getting an education for me; I am doing it so I can provide better for my daughter and guide her better, later in her life. Sometimes what’s in the best interest of my child is what’s in the best interest for me. The situation I outlined above was not hypothetical, it was a true story except for the fact that most of my bills were higher than what I mentioned and I had credit cards. I’m 26 years old and I live with my parents, I don’t do it because it’s fun, I do it because the other option is living on the street.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]The only reason most men know it costs a lot is because they know the system is filled with some 90% men who are in the non-custodial parent situation and that if they don’t pay up the law will get them. Couple that with the sense of entitlement that has filtered into the system all through the guise of providing better for our children, and the fact that if you are a man and you question this entitlement mentality you are labeled less of a man, and you end up with the men you were talking about that “know” it costs a lot to raise a child. This isn’t about getting out of supporting a child, the issue is whether or not men should have to law on their side, like women do now, to opt out of child rearing upon finding out they are expecting. The support problem is an issue to consider [U]before[/U] having children and right now men aren’t allowed that same right that is given to women. Regardless of whether you believe abortion is right or wrong, until they overturn Roe v. Wade, men should have that same right that women have. The Constitution says so. [/FONT][/QUOTE]



So, where did I go wrong, if at all?

What could I do to strengthen my point?

Is my point clear and concise with the appropriate evidential support?

Any other advice is greatly appreciated.

[Guest]

I also wanted to note, although I didn't say it in the debate, that this "feminine" plague of entitlement theory is why this country is as fucked up as it is now. But I didn't...

Also, the debate was before the passage of the health care bill.

[Guest]

You forgot to edit out names

Nothing really stood out as far as flaws or fallacies so far (I'm up to your last reply) but give me a few minutes to suck it all up and I could probably come up with something.

[Guest]

I'd say you presented your case very well. Backed it up with facts, figures, and threw in a little personal opinion when you needed to. It was very much how a smart educated MALE would do it! The only thing I'd do differently to get your point across better is shorten it up some.

Her stuff was typical of most females. Lacks a lot of fact......based on emotional reasoning that she made up in her head based on what time of the month it was and past experiences. It was all about how she "feels"!

At one point the sillly bitch says she wasn't depending on her husband nor the govt. for assistance when they separated. The second time she brings up her separation she is mad at the govt. because she didn't qualifty for any handouts. However she did mention her kid was on CHIPS for 6months! So which is it??????

She also stated that both man and woman have a financial obligation because they are the ones who created the baby. Ok, I can buy that to some point. But I'd like to know why in the hell does she "feel" the govt. should be financially obligated to support her baby via some welfare healthcare program that she took advantage of???? Was there some 3rd party government sperm that made its way thru her vajayjay that she "Feels" should be financially obligated?

As an American tax payer, I get tired of paying for peoples mistakes via some government issued handout courtesy of some law abiding taxpaying schmuck like myself. Wheres my f'n thank you note so her kid could have health insurance?

And heres another thing that burns my ass up. If that girl wants some examples of single moms and how they abuse child support you send that hooker right to UncleHOwie. I personally know 3 girls who have 3kids a piece that don't even fucking WORK. They live off their child support check they get every month from the men they spread their legs to. Guess what.............that money doesn't go to raising the kid. Most of it goes to the mom to fund her lifestyle of entitlement.

If I ever had to pay child support I'd demand an itemized bill complete with receipts.


Why did you aplogize for "angering" her!!!???

[Guest]

[QUOTE]If I ever had to pay child support I'd demand an itemized bill complete with receipts.

Why did you aplogize for "angering" her!!!??? [/QUOTE]Lol yeah.. I tried the whole itemized bill thing... courts said "uh uh".

Because I wasn't done with my argument and I wanted her to post her next post which was mostly anticipated. That's why I apologized, plus it is a class environment and we all know the victim card women like to play and how they go brain dead and emotional when they lose a logical argument, so I obliged her on the little one. Sort of a three steps forward one step back sort of deal.

Good catch with the government help thing... that slipped right by.

[Guest]

[QUOTE]The only thing I'd do differently to get your point across better is shorten it up some. [/QUOTE]

See, this is where I get lost... I have tried to shorten it up but it has been my experience in dealing with women, that usually you have to spell points out otherwise they argue with logic and the bystanders who I am also ultimately trying to convince don't follow. What do you think would be a good way to shorten this up but still retain the bulk of the argument?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Finesse;35826]See, this is where I get lost... I have tried to shorten it up but it has been my experience in dealing with women, that usually you have to spell points out otherwise they argue with logic and the bystanders who I am also ultimately trying to convince don't follow. What do you think would be a good way to shorten this up but still retain the bulk of the argument?[/QUOTE]


I've experienced exactly the same thing when arguing with women. I've found that if you use the brevity one would use when engaging a man in a logical argument then women get lost. There are too many 'chunks' of basic logic, that are intuitive to men but not to women, missing in the logic strand for women to follow the thread effectively. However, there are some women that are logical in some parts of life and not others, i.e. I've dated several accountants and finance professionals that are very logical in their fields but cannot apply the same logic to relationships.

So, when arguing with a woman or trying to explain my perspective, I've found that they only way they follow is when you lay everything out for them step by step, making the assumption that they know nothing about what you're talking about, AND you repeat the same point/conclusion in different ways over and over again. The problem with this is that once the light bulb goes off and they get it, if they still don't agree that's when they start the attacks. They say you're being old-fashioned, sexist, and/or belittling them.

I've always found that when you get a woman flustered and emotional and to the point where she's attacking you and not the issue, then they see your point and agree with it because they didn't imploy logical thinking to begin with and are embarassed that they didn't see what it is that you saw and had to explain to them. In short, it makes them feel stupid. So, instead of admitting their ignorance, they attack you with personal attacks. It's the same tactic that Democrats use against the Right when we present facts and logic, and unfortunately, the emotional appeal like this is highly effective in diffusing logic and factual information.

[Guest]

"Bambi?" Where does she dance? ;)

[Guest]

To determine what you did wrong or right, it's important to ask what your goal was. Then all that matters is whether you got the outcome you were seeking. So what was your goal in this interaction?
A. To present reasoning to support your position on a topic you feel strongly about to educate people and hopefully sway them;
B. To convince this particular person that she's wrong and you're right, i.e. to win;
C. To engage someone in a debate and flex your intellectual muscle in a manner that both participants are able to experience growth;
D. To open your mind to feedback about the topic to gain a full understanding of the subject matter;
E. To have a successful interaction ("successful" meaning each person understands the other, respects the other, and learns from the other) with a person who views the world in a different way.

It seems like your goal was A and B, which I think you achieved, so you did everything right.

On the other hand, and I could be wrong about this, it seems like you are also wondering about E. My observation is that you were somewhat interested in C and not at all interested in D.