Would you LTR a single Mommy?

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
Last I checked, babies do come into this world as a direct result of a guy sticking his d*ck into a woman's vagina. Maybe that's not how sexual reproduction works on your strange planet. I'd be curious to hear your theories about how babies are made.

Well here, let me explain it to you since you don't know:

How many vagina's have you put your penis in? How many babies do you have? Zero right? So obviously sticking your penis in a vagina does not a baby make.

With the advent of modern birth control and abortion, sex and pregnancy no longer necessarily lead to childbirth; it requires a WILLFUL choice on the part of a woman to bring a child to full term.

Children do not get born because men shoot loads. Humans are conceived because of that, but it takes the decision of a woman to bring about the inevitable.

If you can't understand that then I'm sorry but I can't help you.

 

[myfriendblu]

Originally posted by princelydeeds
I'm no legal scholar but please inform me of one single case in which a man has won his request to block a woman from having an abortion. In every single case that I've ever read or heard about the judges have always upheld roe v wade which found that pregnancy was/is a private matter between woman and doctor. Most courts won't even hear arguments because of the fundamental right to privacy issues.

-----EXACTLY !!!! I have NEVER heard of a man winning a case. Maybe once or twice, but Im willing to bet the court favors in a womens side 99.9 percent of the time. Just the usual blabber from malibu that we have become accostomed to.


shouldn't men under the 14th amendment not be given the same right to accept or reject parenthood post conception? equal

-----Please, EVERYONE knows that men get screwed over when it comes to ANYTHING involving the courts vs. women. Wether it be child support, divorce, sexual harassment, etc. forget about it. More jibber jabber from malibu

 

[Eyecandie4ya]

I think the point that is missing is the "preference" to date a woman with a child. There are legitimate arguements for both cases so there is no reasons to knock anyone opinions.

As far as my experience goes in this matter, I would "prefer" to date a woman without a child because of some of the things I've dealt with in my past. Here is my list:

1. Losing a child that I help raise because the mother felt that I wasn't the real father anyway and whoever she with that will be the daddy so the child will have "both" parents at the house.

2. Babyfather

3. The time of getting to know me wasn't available.

4. Unable to discpline kid(s)

These are the main reason for "me" of why I prefer a woman with no kids. Would I do it again, hell yeah because I know that there are good single moms out there. But I still prefer a woman with no kids.

On another note when someone ask women do they prefer a man with kids, most of them say no and this seem justifiable to "society". But why when men states this, we are being irrational.
HMMMMMM!

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Children do not get born because men shoot loads. Humans are conceived because of that, but it takes the decision of a woman to bring about the inevitable.

You talk as if the guy has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. If you don't want to have kids, DON'T HAVE SEX. If you're not ready or willing to take care of the responsibilities that arise from creating a child, DON'T HAVE SEX, because as much as this might surprise you, having sex does create babies. If you don't shoot your load, no babies will be made. If you didn't know that, your junior high health teacher should be slapped.

 

[Matt ala Casanova]

I am just wondering why this thread is still alive. I mean it's common sense, accept a women with kids or not. There are plenty of single girls without little ones. Personally I don't care, I'm old enough to accept it all. Pvssy isn't my only objective as a DJ.

M.A.C.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by Eyecandie4ya
On another note when someone ask women do they prefer a man with kids, most of them say no and this seem justifiable to "society". But why when men states this, we are being irrational.

I don't think that's so much the case, at least not the way I look at it. I believe that a guy should be able to date whoever he likes. If a guy wants to only date girls who are in their twenties, that should be fine. If a guy only wants to date girls who have never been married, that should be fine. The same for single mothers or whatever.

My only issue with this is when guys who say that they will never date a single mother say that guys who do are: (AFC, "beta", etc.) and try to stereotype girls who happen to be single mothers (whatever their reason for being such) and also stereotype the guys who choose to be with them.

It's okay for a DJ to choose not to date, have sex with, or enter a relationship with a single mother. But there is nothing AFC, "beta" or "un-DJ" about those who do so.

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
because as much as this might surprise you, having sex does create babies.

Did all of the women you've ever had sex with have babies?

No.

Therefore, sex is not equal to a baby.

sex != baby

While sex is necessary it is not SUFFICIENT to create a child, other things must happen along the way for babies to come into the world. Why that is so difficult to understand I don't know.

I've stated the above as simply as I can, if you don't understand this time then I will assume you are being willfully ignorant for what ever reason. In which case there is no point to continue to respond to this.

 

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
sex != baby

The geeks come out of the woodwork.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Did all of the women you've ever had sex with have babies?

No.

Therefore, sex is not equal to a baby.

Are you being THICK on purpose, or do you just lack a certain mental capacity?

No, a woman doesn't get pregnant every time you have sex with her, but if you don't have sex with her, YOU WON'T GET HER PREGNANT. If you don't want her to get pregnant, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER. If you have sex with her, you might get her pregnant. This is basic 8th grade sex ed stuff here.

 

[Sexy_Malibu]

Originally posted by princelydeeds
My question to you is this, if the 14th amendment, which I'm sure you know, promises that no state will deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, (read: MAN, Woman and Child would be equal in the eyes of the law) shouldn't men under the 14th amendment not be given the same right to accept or reject parenthood post conception? I'm not aware of a best interest of the child amendment, and my hope is not to make this a moral discussion but an equal rights issue. As i said Im not asking a moral question, I'm asking an equal right/ equal protection question.

I am not up on the current laws at all, but I think there are lawyers on this site (Giovanni?)... but based on what I've heard/learned I think men are entitled to give up their parental rights and sign over all rights to the child (and therefore responsibilities to the child). I don't know if they can get rid of ALL responsibilities, but basically its sort of like giving the baby up for adoption, but just giving the baby up to the mother. I don't know if I'm totally wrong on this, so don't flame me... I am openly admitting my skepticism... it just sounds like something I heard somewhere.

Originally posted by dietzcoi First of all IGNORE all posts by women on this issue, they naturally have the wrong opinion. Why? Because they want to find an AFC to financially support thier kids, thats why!

Um... there is a big difference between dating a single mother and financially supporting their kids. If I ever get married my husband won't support my children, their father and I will.

Originally posted by myfriendblu
I'm no legal scholar but please inform me of one single case in which a man has won his request to block a woman from having an abortion. In every single case that I've ever read or heard about the judges have always upheld roe v wade which found that pregnancy was/is a private matter between woman and doctor. Most courts won't even hear arguments because of the fundamental right to privacy issues.

----EXACTLY !!!! I have NEVER heard of a man winning a case. Maybe once or twice, but Im willing to bet the court favors in a womens side 99.9 percent of the time. Just the usual blabber from malibu that we have become accostomed to.

There have been "Temporary Restraining Orders" obtained by men (husbands and "boyfriends") from state courts instructing women from exercising their right to choose to have an abortion.

April 4, 1988 (Vigo County, Indiana) : a TRO prohibiting an 18 year old unmarried woman ("Jane Doe") from obtaining an abortion was requested by her alleged boyfriend of three months ("John Smith") and issued by the Vigo County court. Clinics and physicians were ordered not to perform an abortion on her. The issued a permanent injunction ordering Jane to bear a child (forcing nine months of pregnancy, labor, childbirth, and unwanted motherhood on her). The court found that Jane's reasons for wanting an abortion were "not good enough".

 

[Sexy_Malibu]

Okay I see blu has started a second thread on this subject. Since most of you aren't going to take the time to read two threads on the same subject... I'm going to repost my response to that thread right here... and then I'm going to try to forget about this topic... haven't you guys heard enough from both sides... it still boils down to the fact that everyone has their own opinions and I doubt anyone will be swayed to the other side by anything I or blu can say... so let's all just move on shall we?

Originally posted by Sexy_Malibu
I guess blu thought starting one thread on this topic wasn't enough.

Listen blu, you can have your opinion... everyone can have their own opinions. But you can't force your opinion down people's throats if they don't agree with you.

It's still based on generalizations, like a lot of decisions and opinions are. Not all single mothers are the same, just as not all women are the same, just as not all human beings are the same.

I will be the first to admit that there are ****ed up people in this world... but by saying "Oh I've documented so-and-so cases of people doing this..." doesn't mean that EVERY person does that. There are a lot of things I can say about parents or non-parents, or men or women, or people with "blu" in their name... but it doesn't hold true for every case.

You just have to let people judge everything on a case-by-case basis. No one is trying to tell you that you have to date a single mother, but you're never going to convince the ENTIRE world not to either. You might convince a lot of people, but let the rest of them have their own opinions based on their own experiences ... and you can have yours, based on your experiences.

I'm not starting a national "DATE THE SINGLE MOTHERS" campaign... there's no need for you to start a "DON'T DATE A SINGLE MOTHERS" movement.

 

[princelydeeds]

Originally posted by Sexy_Malibu
I am not up on the current laws at all, but I think there are lawyers on this site (Giovanni?)... but based on what I've heard/learned I think men are entitled to give up their parental rights and sign over all rights to the child (and therefore responsibilities to the child). I don't know if they can get rid of ALL responsibilities, but basically its sort of like giving the baby up for adoption, but just giving the baby up to the mother. I don't know if I'm totally wrong on this, so don't flame me... I am openly admitting my skepticism... it just sounds like something I heard somewhere.
Um... there is a big difference between dating a single mother and financially supporting their kids. If I ever get married my husband won't support my children, their father and I will.

There have been "Temporary Restraining Orders" obtained by men (husbands and "boyfriends") from state courts instructing women from exercising their right to choose to have an abortion.

April 4, 1988 (Vigo County, Indiana) : a TRO prohibiting an 18 year old unmarried woman ("Jane Doe") from obtaining an abortion was requested by her alleged boyfriend of three months ("John Smith") and issued by the Vigo County court. Clinics and physicians were ordered not to perform an abortion on her. The issued a permanent injunction ordering Jane to bear a child (forcing nine months of pregnancy, labor, childbirth, and unwanted motherhood on her). The court found that Jane's reasons for wanting an abortion were "not good enough".

If we are talking about the same case all the woman did was go to the next county or next state and have the procedure done. All the woman has to do is say that the man filing the complaint is not the father and she can have the abortion. If she went the legal route I can assure you that her case was thrown out at a higher level. I am not aware of any precedent setting case that was not turned over on apeal.

On the matter of termination of parental rights, a man can have his rights terminated but only if the mother chooses to allow him to do so. The mother has the right to terminate his rights, if she can show that the man has not been a part of or contriubuted to the childs life. A man can have his rights terminated, in some states, but he cannot terminate his financial responsibilty in any state without the mothers ok.

 

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by myfriendblu
I'm no legal scholar but please inform me of one single case in which a man has won his request to block a woman from having an abortion.

There was one highly publicized case up here in Quebec about 10 years ago. I don't remember what it was called.

A guy requested an injunction against his ex-girlfriend preventing her from getting an abortion. His argument was that he wanted custody of the child. He had a history of violence towards women, this latest ex and at least one other. Had been arrested several times, but I don't know if he'd ever been convicted. He won. She had the baby, and he changed his mind. As far as I know she kept it.

I don't know of any other cases of it's type won by the father in Canada.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by Sexy_Malibu
I am not up on the current laws at all, but I think there are lawyers on this site (Giovanni?)... but based on what I've heard/learned I think men are entitled to give up their parental rights and sign over all rights to the child (and therefore responsibilities to the child). I don't know if they can get rid of ALL responsibilities, but basically its sort of like giving the baby up for adoption, but just giving the baby up to the mother. I don't know if I'm totally wrong on this, so don't flame me... I am openly admitting my skepticism... it just sounds like something I heard somewhere.

I'm not a lawyer yet, but princelydeeds is correct in his statements.

The courts have thrown out temporary restraining orders concerning a man wanting to prevent a woman carrying his child from having an abortion. That's a very difficult issue for me, because on the one hand I really support the right of a woman to choose what happens with her own body, and I don't feel that she should be forced to carry a child to term and give birth against her will. On the other hand, however, I feel that it is horribly unfair that a man is not allowed to have the same rights concerning children that he was 50% responsible for creating as women do.

In the end, however, I tend to favor the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body. If there was a way for the man to carry the baby to term and give birth and raise the kid himself and go after the girl for child support, I would absolutely support that in lieu of an abortion in such cases. Until that day comes, though, I don't think that any guy should be able to force any girl to do anything with her body that she doesn't want to do.

On the note of termination of a father's parental rights, it cannot be done without the mother's approval (the reverse is also true regarding the termination of a mother's parental rights) or a court order (for example, in instances of abuse or neglect). In fact, some states still require a father to pay child support even if he signs away his parental rights, and even if the mother is okay with him not paying child support. It all depends on the family laws of your particular state, but in general, princelydeeds has it right.

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by princelydeeds
On the matter of termination of parental rights, a man can have his rights terminated but only if the mother chooses to allow him to do so. The mother has the right to terminate his rights, if she can show that the man has not been a part of or contributed to the childs life. A man can have his rights terminated, in some states, but he cannot terminate his financial responsibilty in any state without the mothers ok.

All of this is also true in the reverse, however in general, most mothers do not choose to have their rights terminated.

 

[princelydeeds]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
In the end, however, I tend to favor the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body. If there was a way for the man to carry the baby to term and give birth and raise the kid himself and go after the girl for child support, I would absolutely support that in lieu of an abortion in such cases. Until that day comes, though, I don't think that any guy should be able to force any girl to do anything with her body that she doesn't want to do.

I would agree that no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion or not have an abortion. But please explain the unequal protection of from the law. If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a parent she has the right to decide, post conception, that she doesn't want to be a parent. She can have an abortion, give the child up for adoption or simply abandon the child. Why shouldn't men have the same options? If there are good reasons for a woman not to want to be a parent, why aren't there good reasons for a man not to want to be a parent?

Do you also support the right of men to do what they want with their bodies? For instance, as a man I can be forced to work more than one job so that I can give a woman an $800 a month paycheck (also known as child support), doesnt that constitue involuntary servitude (covered by the 13th amendment)? How does the rights of men to do what they choose with their bodies, differ from a womans right to do what she wants with her body?

For the record Im all about equality. I consider myself to be the ultimate feminist. I think everyone should be truly equal in the eyes of the law. I don't think women should receive less money for the same job but I also don't think they should receive lesser or no sentences for committing the same crimes (ex. somewhere in the neighborhood of 30+% of all reported rapes are proven to be comlpetely fraudulent, rape carries a severe penalty, but it is unheard of for a woman to be prosecuted for such fraud).

 

[Giovanni Casanova]

Originally posted by princelydeeds
I would agree that no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion or not have an abortion. But please explain the unequal protection of from the law. If a woman decides she doesnt want to be a parent she has the right to decide, post conception, that she doesn't want to be a parent. She can have an abortion, give the child up for adoption or simply abandon the child. Why shouldn't men have the same options? If there are good reasons for a woman not to want to be a parent, why aren't there good reasons for a man not to want to be a parent?

Men and women DO have equal protection. A man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, nor can a man force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Likewise, a woman cannot force a man to get an abortion, nor can she force a man to carry a pregnancy to term. Completely equal. The reason why you think it is unequal is because women are able to make choices about what happens within their own bodies (which is where most fetuses grow). When the day comes when men carry fetuses within their own bodies, then the men can make the final determination about what gets done with their bodies and the fetus growing inside it.

Aside from the abortion issue, a man has a say in giving a child up for adoption, or abandoning the child, just as much as a woman does. If a man wants to give a child up for adoption, but the woman doesn't, she can keep the child and raise it (and get child support from the man). If a woman wants to give up a child for adoption, but a man doesn't, he can keep the child and raise it (and get child support from the woman). If that's not equal, nothing is. The same applies with "abandonment". I know plenty of guys who won full custody of their kids and collect child support from the mothers. One of my best friends has three young boys from two different mothers and he has full custody of all three of them, and receives child support from both mothers.

Do you also support the right of men to do what they want with their bodies? For instance, as a man I can be forced to work more than one job so that I can give a woman an $800 a month paycheck (also known as child support), doesnt that constitue involuntary servitude (covered by the 13th amendment)? How does the rights of men to do what they choose with their bodies, differ from a womans right to do what she wants with her body?

Everyone's situation is different, and I believe that there is much about child support laws that need to be addressed differently than how they are now. However, with that said, if you are just as involved in your child's life and get truly joint custody (50/50, which the courts will often award if the father wants it and is not abusive, etc.), then child support is very little, if anything.

I acknowledge that there are some problems with the way child support works in many areas of this country. It can be very unfair for both men AND women. But that's a little too far off on a tangent from what the original topic was for even me. If you want to discuss it further, I'd recommend starting a new thread about it.

 

[Sexy_Malibu]

Originally posted by princelydeeds
For the record Im all about equality. I consider myself to be the ultimate feminist. I think everyone should be truly equal in the eyes of the law. I don't think women should receive less money for the same job but I also don't think they should receive lesser or no sentences for committing the same crimes (ex. somewhere in the neighborhood of 30+% of all reported rapes are proven to be comlpetely fraudulent, rape carries a severe penalty, but it is unheard of for a woman to be prosecuted for such fraud).

Where did you come up with that figure? I find that shocking... When you say "completely fraudulent" does that mean that the man was simply not convicted? Because rape is often very hard to prove, doesn't mean it didn't happen just because it couldn't be proven in a court of law. I can't imagine that anywhere near 30% of all reported rapes were made up... while it does happen, I think many of those were probably just harder to prove (no rape kit done, no semen evidence, acquaintance rape is hard to prove because its always a matter of "he said/she said"). Also... do you have any idea how many rapes are NOT even reported...

 

[ShortTimer]

Where did you come up with that figure? I find that shocking...

There's nothing shocking about it, actually 30% isn't quite right:


Citing a recent USA Today article, discussing the miracle of DNA and FBI studies of sexual assault suspects, DNA testing exonerated about 30 percent to 35 percent of the more than 4,000 sexual assault suspects on whom the FBI had conducted DNA testing over the past three years.

• In the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit’s study of False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 (40%) of these reported rapes turned out to be false. Over one fourth of these 556 turned out to be hoaxes. And yet, some feminists and rape counselors claim that only two percent of rape reports are false.

• Linda Fairstein, who directs the prosecution of sexual assault in New York, says that there are approximately 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen. Says Fairstein, “It’s my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it’s my job to prosecute the real thing.”

• In New Zealand, police officials have stated that 64 percent of rape reports are false and that some women are making a business out of being raped, collecting sometimes up to $10,000 compensation per case.

• The FBI stated that in 1990 over 8,500 of the rapes reported proved to be false. False reports of child abuse were twice that figure.

You can find that here: http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaStats.html

 

[princelydeeds]

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova

The reason why you think it is unequal is because women are able to make choices about what happens within their own bodies (which is where most fetuses grow). When the day comes when men carry fetuses within their own bodies

Whoa, Slow your Roll Buddy be careful when telling me why I think something is unequal. Actually you missed my point completely. Thats not at all why I think its unequal. The reason I think its unequal is because the law gives women the right to decline parenthood post conception and after the birth of the child. Equal protection would provide men the same right to decline parenthood both post conception and birth.

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova

Aside from the abortion issue, a man has a say in giving a child up for adoption, or abandoning the child, just as much as a woman does. If a man wants to give a child up for adoption, but the woman doesn't, she can keep the child and raise it (and get child support from the man). If a woman wants to give up a child for adoption, but a man doesn't, he can keep the child and raise it (and get child support from the woman). If that's not equal, nothing is. The same applies with "abandonment". I know plenty of guys who won full custody of their kids and collect child support from the mothers.

Actually you couldn't be any further off. In most cases, a woman can give a child up for adoption simply by saying that she doesn''t know who the father is. If the mother states that she doesn't know who the father is, she doesnt need his consent to put the child up for adoption. Also there are numerous cases (Ive done a ton of reading on this subject) where women have given up children for adoption even thought the fatehr was trying to get cutody. A mother doesn't have to permit a man to take a DNA test to prove he is the father. In most cases all she has to do is say he is not the father and there is no chance he is the father and the courts will bar him from taking the test.

Abandonment of non newborn children by their mother is different from what i'm talking about. A woman has the right to legally surrender a newborn at a hospital or police or fire station without the criminal sanctions that accompany abandonment.
This is a link to the laws in michigan actually called the safe delivery of newborns law.

http://www.med.umich.edu/em/policies/safehaven.pdf

You know plenty of guys that won custody? hmmmm... that is one of those easy statements to make that flies against my practical experience in the real world. You may know one maybe two, unless the guys you hang out with have kids from drug addicts or women with severe mental problems. Those same women could get those kids back by showing they have a job and have become legally, morally or financially responsible people. In order for a man to get custody he has to prove the mother is unfit. Proving that a woman is unfit is a very tall order. She darn near has to walk into court with needles hanging out of her arms. Even if she does do that as soon as she shows a rehab slip she will usually get the kid back. Thats what i know from volunteering with beat down dads for the last few years (beat down by the child support system,.

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
Everyone's situation is different, and I believe that there is much about child support laws that need to be addressed differently than how they are now. However, with that said, if you are just as involved in your child's life and get truly joint custody (50/50, which the courts will often award if the father wants it and is not abusive, etc.), then child support is very little, if anything.

Again I don't know where you get your information, Im sure the laws aren't so different in Michigan as they are everywhere else. Take my word for it, just becasue you spend a good deal of time with your child does not mean you get 50/50 custody nor does it make your child support almost nothing. Unless, your idea of almost nothing is 1/3 of your gross salary (almost half of your net). Anytime you are designated the non custodial parent you can and will be held responsible for child support. Child support always goes according to certain MANDATED state guidlines. The amount a judge can deviate is also mandated by the law. Most states use the New Jersey system as their foundation. Trust me, nothing in the New jersey statutes allows for a reduction just cause you spend a lot of time with your kid. If you don't believe me read them yourself.

Originally posted by Giovanni Casanova
I acknowledge that there are some problems with the way child support works in many areas of this country. It can be very unfair for both men AND women.

I cannot think of one way in which the system is unfair to women.