Posted on 05/27/2010 10:50:08 AM PDT by markomalley
How much say should a man have in the decision to become a parent?
For Catholics, the answer is easy: A man who doesn’t want to be a parent should not be having sex. That’s where the “freedom of choice” comes in. But the immorality of our secular, pro-abortion culture makes the question significantly more complicated than that.
This month, Elle magazine publishes a story about Greg Bruell, a man who made a pact with his girlfriend that if she became pregnant, she would have an abortion. She had already done that once, but when she became pregnant a second time, she refused to have an abortion. She kept the baby and sought child support.
Infuriated about the “miserable betrayal,” Bruell told Hedrick it was over between them, for good. He believed she’d deliberately gotten pregnant. Then, two months later, as he was leaving a session with his personal trainer, he was served with a lawsuit demanding child support for his unborn child. That’s when Bruell called Mel Feit, a founder of the National Center for Men (NCM), and volunteered to become the next poster boy for male reproductive rights ...
Feit’s list of grievances range from sexist social standards—why should men still be expected to foot the bill on dates? Why is crying or showing weakness verboten for them?—to what he considers discrimination enforced by the state: men’s lack of reproductive rights combined with unfair child support laws. “Reproductive choice isn’t a fundamental right if it’s only limited to people who have internal reproductive systems,” Feit says. “If it only applies to women, it’s a limited right and that weakens it.” In his view, Planned Parenthood’s motto—“Every child a wanted child”—should apply to both people who make the baby.
Undoubtedly, an argument in favor of paternal “freedom of choice” puts abortion proponents in a tricky spot. For example, the article highlights the work of Dalton Conley, the dean of social sciences at New York University, who in his zeal for fathers’ rights dares to argue that “If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create.”
Wow. I would guess that most advocates of “reproductive rights” would have difficulty embracing that idea.
If you read the whole sad story, you will find that ultimately Bruell dropped his lawsuit against his girlfriend. He appears to love his family and didn’t have it in him to pursue litigation against them to make a political point.
Let’s pray that human emotion and natural attachment might always score such a quiet victory over attempted perversion of the family unit.
I usually say keep the legs closed myself. But I'm old fashioned and like to see women in skirts.
No one forces many women to have sex either but they reserve the right to kill thier child, he was just asking for an equal opportunity to become a murderer.
“If a woman says she never wants to be a parent, she still retains the right to a sex life...”
See, in the feminist and liberal mind, this is EQUAL rights!
Remember, some animals are just more equal than others!
Isn’t it funny how pro-child murderers think it is a woman’s right to kill her child but get all exercised if a man wants a woman to kill her child.
That reaction alone should make it obvious that child murder is wrong because if it was right it would be right no matter who suggested or did it.
I know what he is asking. I know abortion is evil whether instigated by the man or the woman. On the other hand, no man can be given the power to dictate what happens to someone else's body, especially if it involves procedures that may cause that someone to lose their lives(as plenty of women have done while attempting an abortion).
How would he like it if some woman that he knocked up then abandoned, went to court and demanded that she be given the right to have him castrated to stop him from further impregnating other women? Hah! Thought so!
Brief synopsis of how child support works.
The courts can legally take(garnish) up to %50 percent of your salary. So, if you were making 30 you are now making 15 40/20 etc. At the same time that is happening, you have to build a new life. New apartment, new plates, new bed, new dishes, etc.
The payer, most often the man, will pay all taxes on that amount. The payment is tax free to the woman.
The man is required to provide health insurance for the child outside of the child support payment.
The man is required to cover %50 of what are called ancillary expenses. This could include dental, Girl Scouts, special education, etc. If you fall behind on your payments your driver's license will be suspended and you could face jail time.
Now comes the good part. When she gets pregnant you are making $40,000 a year. So, the child support amount is set at that level.
Let's say you want to take a job for 30,000 because it provides a better career path. This is called a ‘voluntary reduction in pay’. Because it is called voluntary, you are still on the hook for the original 40,000 amount even though you are now making 30,000. So, practically speaking, you are required by law to make as much or more than you make at the time of the judgment, for the rest of the 20 years. Or you wind up going into arrears, lose your license, and possibly go to jail.
Any time the man receives a raise, he must report this to the government.
Any time the man receives a bonus or windfall, he is required to report this to the government.
Any time the man changes jobs, he is required to report this to the government.
Any time the man moves, he is required to report this to the government.
The woman, on the other hand, has no obligations or responsibilities of any kind. She does not have to report how much she makes. She does not have to report how she is spending the money. She is totally free and clear except now she has a pension.
As far as the child, the woman will have discretion on if you see the child, for how long, and in what circumstances. Regardless of all the agreements and good intentions at the outset, the child will inevitably be exposed to a lot of hostility and negativity toward the father. The mother will do as she pleases without fear of consequence including moving out of town and out of state. And eventually a new boyfriend will take the natural father's place entirely.
So, over time over years, you are sending a massive part of your paycheck to some woman you used to know years ago, and a child who now calls some other guy Dad.
I know this is a little long, but it could be longer. I made it as short as I could. Child support is not about 'supporting the child'. It is a legal judgment against the man(normally) enforced by the Sheriffs Department. It is wholly punitive, in my opinion. Child support is a life killer especially if you have a vindictive partner with a good lawyer.
You are correct. And if the BC fails, then the man is responsible for making a baby as much as the woman is.
Child support, except for wealthy fathers, does not amount to enough to support a woman with one or more children. I received $300/month for 2 boys. After the oldest turned 18 and graduated from high school, it dropped to $250/month, although I still supported the oldest (he joined the USAF the following August). As soon as the youngest turned 18 (after graduation), the support stopped, although I continued to support him for the next 5 years while he went to college. Child support does not usually contribute greatly to the family finances and it does not come near to half the cost of raising a child, although anything is a help.
That is sophistry. Few women collect enough money for child support watch oprah and eat chocolates blah, blah, blah.
Not in Texas. If a woman is lucky, her children may get 20%. I wasn't lucky. What's with you guys who think a man doesn't need to/or shouldn't have to support his own flesh and blood?
That makes no sense to me. He must be a very very junior soldier for that amount.
The military has their own child support rates for each rank. That amount would apply to a private or a corporal. If he is higher than that, you should be getting more.
You can call the CSEA and ask for a ‘change of circumstance review’. You will submit your income, he will submit his and they will determine the correct amount.
My story has to do with a wife getting pregnant immediately after the wedding, and then seeking divorce immediately after the birth.
If the wife initiated the divorce specifically for the child support, she should bear the responsibility. IMO
However, in cases of the Husband walking out, or drugs, or violence, or infidelity, then that is a whole different situation and I would support the wife in those cases.
Any time the man receives a bonus or windfall, he is required to report this to the government.
Any time the man changes jobs, he is required to report this to the government.
Any time the man moves, he is required to report this to the government.
Not in Texas.
Not in Texas.
Not in Texas.
Not in Texas.
The woman must do all the leg work and bring the man back to court she thinks her children are entitled to higher benefits if any of the above happens. It's up to her to track him down if he moves or changes jobs and a new order is required to deduct the child support from his wages. In Texas, if the man paid to support his children as directed by the court, then garnishment would not be necessary.
Go back and re-read—my SON joined the USAF in August after he turned 18. I did not have to support him, although I helped him a lot during his years at the USAFA. Nothing from his father.
In my state the garnishment is automatic.
Also again, you should contact the CSEA to review your case.
Either Texas has a much, much, more lax system than the one I am in, or you are not as diligent as my ex and are not exercising all your rights.
Sounds like something is wrong to me.
It’s all behind me now. Their father couldn’t hold down a job and God blessed me with a successful career. But those early years were tough.
>>OH my goodness. You really are out of the loop.<<
OH my goodness. You never answered the question.
Didn’t you plan to support any child you made?
Is that related to pregnancy? Maybe after a few more babies/abortions, the mom will figure that out too.
“For Catholics, the answer is easy: A man who doesn’t want to be a parent should not be having sex.”
Most Christians I know believe that.
I never had a chance to think about ‘what I plan’. It was all taken out of my hands and controlled by the state.
What I plan or what I want is irrelevent at this point. It just doesn't matter.
“On the other hand, no man can be given the power to dictate what happens to someone else’s body”
Wow, careful, that sounds like the argument the pro-aborts use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.