Dead Beat Dad - Completely Unfair Label?

Well Id be the first to say to my son " Time for the man pill" at 16yrs old

But I seriously hope he has brains and never thinks with his genitals.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


But i think, even if it is introduced. It will be used for long term relationship, rather than short term, casual sex.

Female pill is easily understood, it pretty much fakes a pregnancy thus rest of the eggs for the cycle is prevented from stay around..but how would a male pill work..It would have to be something that stops sperm production, but how would that work temporarily.

We will just have to find out. 2020 maybe!

reply to post by luciddream


If I might speculate here..

The Male Birth Control Pill won't have to stop sperm production, it will merely have to result in immobilized sperm. If you take away the sperms ability to travel up into the cervix and into the egg, you eliminate the ability to impregnate. My guess is that it will be some kind of hormonal blocker designed to paralyze the tail section of sperm cells.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by luciddream

 

If I might speculate here..

The Male Birth Control Pill won't have to stop sperm production, it will merely have to result in immobilized sperm. If you take away the sperms ability to travel up into the cervix and into the egg, you eliminate the ability to impregnate. My guess is that it will be some kind of hormonal blocker designed to paralyze the tail section of sperm cells.

Something like that sounds like it could have long term effects on a man's reproductive ability even after they stop taking the pill. ED is already big enough of a problem as is without feeding into it.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Yes but we have to think about the long term effect. What if it blocks outs a crucial part of the protein and permanently paralysis all the future sperm's tail... just my speculation as well.

The reason female pill was easy because of the monthly "wash" and "restart" cycle.

Human male body does not have a repetitive rhythm, its a mutant! XY!

I feel that on " agreement " of both parents the non-resident parent should have the right to ask - if they wish to give up all parental responsibilities.

This means that the child may never know... the real story. But hey this non-resident parent clearly "couldnt cope" or didnt care. What ever the reason. Sometimes kids are better off without the worry of having some indequate parent in their life.

The law does favor women I will admit. Not sure why... its kinda cruel. but I personally think they are trying to reduce numbers, numbers of orphans and numbers of men not paying.

And this is the only way...

Of course there are those who can and do escape the law.Some just tell the mother not to tell anyone they are the father and they agree, others make personal payment arrangments.

It just depends on your luck, when you take risks... with your genitals.

Originally posted by MadhatterTheGreat
Dead Beat Dad - Completely Unfair Label?

No it's very fair.

Along with DEAD BEAT MOM, which there are equally as many of, if not more.

Being in the middle of disagreements between parents with one deadbeat parent is emotionally like being " beat up" its quite savage. I mean you become like a disposable thing. No one in your life treats you as human.

And it does accur that the resident parent " neglects" the child as they felt " neglected by their ex partner. It is no smooth ride for the child. Should they have given this child up for adoption? Maybe. I for sure have always felt I should have been given up for adoption. Instead of being used as a " punch bag" for their problems.

But alas I am here.
I am the victim of a deadbeat parent.

Of course now I am older I can turn that around , make my life positive. And I am alot more steady.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by luciddream

 

If I might speculate here..

The Male Birth Control Pill won't have to stop sperm production, it will merely have to result in immobilized sperm. If you take away the sperms ability to travel up into the cervix and into the egg, you eliminate the ability to impregnate. My guess is that it will be some kind of hormonal blocker designed to paralyze the tail section of sperm cells.

Something like that sounds like it could have long term effects on a man's reproductive ability even after they stop taking the pill. ED is already big enough of a problem as is without feeding into it.

It might sound like that to someone that doesn't quite understand the physiology of the reproductive system. This wouldn't be something that would target the gonads themselves, but rather the sperm on the post production side. Think of it more along the lines of grabbing a handful of red jelly beans, but you have a glove that turns every jelly bean you grab blue. It doesn't damage the bag of red jelly beans, nor does it affect your and after you take the glove off.

I'm sure there will be an increased risk of cancer, however there is also that increased risk with female contraception.

And I would counter with FEAR of ED is already a big enough problem without feeding into it.

Originally posted by generik
how about the "free will" not to have sex? as it takes two to make one it should take two to kill one. but no the choice only rests with ONE because they are too WIMPY or SELFISH to actually face their mistake, and so murder an innocent instead.

Absolutely, both sexes have the free will to not have sex, however, its a woman's choice to have an abortion or not because she is the one who has to bare the potential offspring. As for women being "whimpy" and "selfish" i suggest that until you know the experience of knowing your pregnant, shut your mouth and dont act like you know what you're talking about.

even an orphanage is better than DEAD, i know my friends that were in orphanages would agree with that. was not "bad for the state" either.

The state having to pay for the rearing of children is financially draining. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

funny women have the SAME choices, and share the same responsibility. so lets not lay all the blame on the guys, the gals share an EQUAL fault.

Exactly, but my point is that men have no need to start playing the victim card if they get someone pregnant, they know they have choices to stop that from happening so they cant play devils advocate when SHTF.

what is a life compared to a short time and a little cash? i know i would not see it as a waste of time and money if i found out that i might have a son or daughter that i could SAVE from death.

Situation is completely avoidable if people took responsibility instead of running away. Court shouldn't have to chase potential fathers, its ridiculous.

they may not be "super sluttish hood rats", but they did willingly "spread their legs", (your linguistics). but guys are just as EQUALLY at fault. it does take two after all, it doesn't mean that EITHER party does everyone they see. that does not mean the guy should have any less responsibility or choice of what happens.

Equal responsibility yes, Equal choice? No. Woman's body, final choice is with her.

if parents were willing to be nice about things there would be no real "moving", they would just live at a different house half of the time. perhaps there should be a clause that BOTH parents have to live say within two blocks from each other for the sake of the children. or would that be unfair and hurt the rights of the parents? the "weekends at the other parent's place" was one of the BIGGEST Things many of my friends with divorced parents hated. as for the parents the same holds true, the "main parent" only gets to deal with them during the week and deal with all the "bad, boring stuff", none of the fun stuff, and the other parent feels they aren't a "real parent" as the can't really share the "bad stuff", which can create stress between the parents which of course will also effect the kids. nothing about separated parents really "fits in with real life", no matter what it is a nasty patchwork solution. at least 50% custody is fairer for ALL involved.

50/50 sounds fair on paper but as ive said, its impractical.

they are MORE viable that the way things are done now. especially since it would remove a lot of the hurt that these situations can cause EVERYONE who is involved for the rest of their lives.

Disagreeing.

no more like an angry MAN who has seen how the world DOESN'T work, and all the hurt it causes both the parents and children, or even parents who have had their offspring murdered just because ONE PERSON was so selfish they couldn't be bothered giving so little of themselves so that the child would live.

Yeah im still thinking you're a teenager.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by RothchildRancor

 

But it is completely ok for a mother to get an abortion because she doesn't want the responsibility to have to support a child? That is completely retarded. You see the courts favor the mother way too much in this matter. It isn't even a scale that is imbalanced, it is a goddamn seesaw!

It's fair. If a woman refuses to abort your seed, you can abort your parental rights.

How is that fair for the life that could of been because someone feels "they are not ready".

I agree that death is very common and will always be that way, but I feel everyone even if they are not a human yet deserves the chance to pop out of the womb regardless if the mother can deal with the pain.

reply to post by MadhatterTheGreat


The Court Systems are Gender-biased money making machines.



PERIOD.


Men are usually the breadwinners, so its no surprise that woman get the custody of the children.

Judges then use detainers to hold the men in jail, somewhat like bail. But, it isn’t bail, because child support is a CIVIL debt. Detainers to keep the men in jail until they pay? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! It’s not about the children! Keeping a man in jail to pay support is an oxymoron. And, most Family Court judges are morons! How does one pay child support if in jail? Does he work in the jail making $10, $15, $20/hr. and have his wages garnished? Does this person invoke the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES when he gets out of jail, since he has no assets or income, and the jailing served as the remedy for the debt owed? Under the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES, the debt has been paid once the person has been jailed for it and released. But, the state will try and keep the arrears on the books. The reason for this: Because judges are granting such high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states what is known as federal reimbursement incentive funding (Title 42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions (along with bonuses and bounties for child support amounts awarded and collected).

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud

For fathers who DO care.........

While the courts can't do much about the irresponsible sperm donator who impregnates a woman and then shirks his duties as a parent, they can do something to acknowledge and protect the rights of men who, for no reason other than having a Y chromosome, have been relegated to second class status as a parent.

The "Y" Factor: Gender Bias, Child Custody And The Great Parenting Myth

reply to post by RothchildRancor


I can appreciate your sentiment, but I was answering the suggesting that, women have a choice in parenthood, while men don't, and it's unfair.

I wasn't addressing what's fair for a non-existent person.