New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions
An Arkansas law makes performing the procedure used in 95 percent of second trimesters a felony, with no exception for rape or incest—and allows family members to stop it.

A new Arkansas law bans one of the safest and most common abortion procedures and allows family members to block an abortion by suing the abortion provider.

Arkansas Act 45, signed by Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson last Thursday, bans dilation and evacuation abortions, the most common abortion procedure during the second trimester of pregnancy. Rushed from filing to law in less than two months, the legislation effectively blocks abortions after 14 weeks by making the safest procedure a felony. The earliest current abortion bans block the procedure after 20 weeks.

With no exception for rape or incest, and a clause that allows a woman’s spouse or parent to sue an abortion provider, the law potentially allows the fetus’s father to sue even in cases of spousal rape or incest, abortion rights activists say. The law could go into effect as early as spring.

During dilation and evacuation procedures, surgical instruments are used to remove material from the womb. It’s a common procedure, accounting for 95 percent of all second-trimester abortions (according to a CDC study), and 683 of Arkansas’s 3,771 abortions in 2015, the state’s health department told The Daily Beast. The procedure is also common after miscarriages, when fetal tissue is removed from the womb to prevent infection, and during medical tests, when uterine tissue is removed for testing. Arkansas’s new ban would make the procedure a felony only when used in an abortion.

“The D&E method is the most common method of second-trimester abortion in the United States and in the world,” Laura McQuade, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, told The Daily Beast. “It is the method endorsed by the World Health Organization, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American Medical Association.”

The consensus from the medical community does not appear to matter to state Sen. David Sanders, a co-sponsor of the bill who testified that the procedure is gross to watch.

“You see a baby, an unborn life, a fetus, engaging in fight or flight reaction to the forceps going into the womb, trying to remove an arm, remove a leg,” he said.
The bill’s co-sponsor, Arkansas Rep. Andy Mayberry, called dilation and evacuation a “gruesome, barbaric procedure” during the bill’s introduction, adding that the routine procedure “is one that no civilized society should embrace.”

When not working in the legislature, Mayberry doubles as the president of Arkansas Right to Life, a subsidiary of the National Right to Life Committee. Introducing the bill before the Arkansas House in January, Mayberry announced that the text was “based on model legislation from National Right to Life that has been passed, or similar legislation has been passed in six states.”

Those six states are Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and West Virginia. In all but the latter two, which passed their bills in spring 2016, legal challenges have temporarily blocked the laws from taking effect. As in the other states, the Arkansas legislation takes a hard line against dilation and evacuation procedures, making their use a Class D felony, punishable by a $10,000 fine or six years in prison.

“They’ve been declared unconstitutional in Oklahoma and Kansas already,” McQuade said of the set of bans. The Supreme Court has ruled states’ abortion laws are unconstitutional if they impose an “undue burden” on a woman attempting to terminate a viable fetus.

But one particularly punishing element of Arkansas’s law has not been tested in court, even in Mississippi and West Virginia, where versions of the bans still stand, reproductive rights activists say.

A clause in the Arkansas law allows a woman’s spouse, parent or guardian, or health care provider to sue an abortion provider for civil damages or injunctive relief that could stop the abortion. And because Act 45 does not provide any exceptions for cases of rape or incest, the clause could allow the fetus’s father to sue an abortion provider even in cases of spousal rape or incest.

Asked whether the clause would allow a father to sue in cases of spousal rape or incest, Mayberry told The Daily Beast that the “bill wouldn’t affect a woman seeking an abortion by any other method” than dilation and evacuation, and that the bill prohibited the father from winning monetary damages in the event of rape or incest. The bill would not, however, prevent the father from seeking injunctive relief to stop an abortion under these circumstances.

“We’ve tried to account for all the worst case scenarios,” Mayberry said, adding that the injunctive relief clause “doesn’t have a whole lot of teeth,” as it would block an abortion provider from performing a procedure already barred under the legislation.

Abortion rights activists say the clause gives a woman’s family control over her health decisions.
“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”

“What that’s getting at, really, is the autonomy and decision-making ability of a woman,” McQuade said. “The law itself is a major overstep into the doctor-patient relationship… This is taking it one step further to say that women are incapable of making these decisions on their own and on their own behalf.”

As a result of Republicans’ supermajority in the Arkansas Assembly, the legislation moved from draft to law in less than two months. Filed Dec. 5, read in the Arkansas House for the first time on Jan. 9, and signed into law on Jan. 26, the bill sped through the state’s legislature with few revisions. One of the few dissenting voices came from Will Bond, a Democratic state senator from Little Rock.


“There is an injunctive relief section in the bill that, in my reading of it, would seem to allow litigation among family members,” Bond told The Daily Beast. “If one spouse sought injunctive relief to prevent a certain procedure, or possibly other family members have the possibility for injunctive relief, that was a concern of mine.”

The clause was one of a number of issues Bond had with the bill, including what he described as the legislation’s lack of exceptions for all but the most serious health issues.

“There is an exception for women’s health in the bill, but it required irreparable harm [to the point of] permanent disability of a woman,” Bond said. “The way it was drafted, I had concerns that the women’s health exception is way too narrow, and there’s no exception for rape and incest.”

Reproductive rights experts say the ban on dilation and evacuations is virtually as effective as banning abortions after the first trimester.
Realistically, under the new legislation, “the only option that anyone in Arkansas would have would be to leave the state,” Musick said.

A small percentage of second-trimester abortions occur via medically induced labor, but this less common method is more time-consuming, requires a hospital stay, and often involves more complications.

“How it used to happen decades in the past was that a woman was induced to deliver,” McQuade said. “We do not want to get to that point. That it is not as safe for the patient.” She added that Planned Parenthood would review its options but might refer patients out of state.

And for women seeking an abortion in Arkansas, time is already against them. A 2015 Arkansas law requires a 48-hour waiting period between an in-person abortion consultation and the procedure. In Arkansas, which only has one dilation and evacuation abortion-providing clinic, the law often forces people to take days off work to travel to the clinic, attend the initial meeting, wait 48 hours, and finally obtain a procedure.

“Normally it’s going to be a week later,” after a woman schedules around her work, travel, and family commitments, Musick said. “Every week that goes past in an abortion makes the procedure more expensive and it makes it riskier. The earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is.”

But the new Arkansas law, the first of its kind passed under the Trump administration, will not go unchallenged, its opponents say. Holly Dickson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the group was aiming to make a case similar to those filed against the bills in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

“It’s been challenged in those first four and been enjoined in every state where there’s been a challenge,” she told The Daily Beast.

The law takes effect 90 days after the end of Arkansas’s legislative session, which is expected in spring, McQuade said. The bill’s opponents would have to file their suit before the law took effect.

“The ACLU has been open in our intent to challenge this if necessary,” Dickson said. “I’m sure that’s what we’ll do this time around. Again.”



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/new-law-lets-dads-veto-abortions.html

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:26pm:

New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions

About time.

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:29pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time.

Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies?

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:30pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies?

Raven is pro-choice but a father should get a say.

If the father truely cares and wants her to have the baby but she does not, then it should be explaind to he will be solely responsible for the care of this child.

Unfortunately you will probably find that their objections will disappear.

Raven wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:57pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? Raven is pro-choice but a father should get a say. If the father truely cares and wants her to have the baby but she does not, then it should be explaind to he will be solely responsible for the care of this child. Unfortunately you will probably find that their objections will disappear.

So you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term then deliver it?

Against her will?

I agree that the father should get a say but thee ultimate decision is the woman's.

About time.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 10:12pm:

So you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term then deliver it? Against her will? I agree that the father should get a say but thee ultimate decision is the woman's.

So you think a man should be forced to pay for a woman and a child he never wanted? For 18 years? Leaving him unable to afford a new family he does?

Against his will?

Can the father force her to abort if he doesn't want it or it will impact his life negatively? The mental stress of having to provide while trying to make his own life?

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 10:47pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:12pm: So you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term then deliver it? Against her will? I agree that the father should get a say but thee ultimate decision is the woman's. So you think a man should be forced to pay for a woman and a child he never wanted? For 18 years? Leaving him unable to afford a new family he does? Against his will? Can the father force her to abort if he doesn't want it or it will impact his life negatively? The mental stress of having to provide while trying to make his own life?

It's not an equal situation. Biology dictates the terms.

The consequence of having sex if you are a woman is that you may become pregnant. You have 2 choices.

The consequence of having sex is you are a man is that you may becomee a father. You also have 2 choices.

But there are laws that are immutable. A woman bears the physical burden and the man is liable for a financial burden.

These are just the rules.

I'm all in favour of a pre-coital 'abortion' for the man. that is he signs a legal statement saying he is unwilling to support a child and if thee woman agrees, sx can take place.

After conception, it's too late.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 10:54pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:47pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:12pm: So you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term then deliver it? Against her will? I agree that the father should get a say but thee ultimate decision is the woman's. So you think a man should be forced to pay for a woman and a child he never wanted? For 18 years? Leaving him unable to afford a new family he does? Against his will? Can the father force her to abort if he doesn't want it or it will impact his life negatively? The mental stress of having to provide while trying to make his own life? It's not an equal situation. Biology dictates the terms. The consequence of having sex if you are a woman is that you may become pregnant. You have 2 choices. The consequence of having sex is you are a man is that you may becomee a father. You also have 2 choices. But there are laws that are immutable. A woman bears the physical burden and the man is liable for a financial burden. These are just the rules. I'm all in favour of a pre-coital 'abortion' for the man. that is he signs a legal statement saying he is unwilling to support a child and if thee woman agrees, sx can take place. After conception, it's too late.

No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child.

Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:01pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:54pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:47pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 10:12pm: So you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term then deliver it? Against her will? I agree that the father should get a say but thee ultimate decision is the woman's. So you think a man should be forced to pay for a woman and a child he never wanted? For 18 years? Leaving him unable to afford a new family he does? Against his will? Can the father force her to abort if he doesn't want it or it will impact his life negatively? The mental stress of having to provide while trying to make his own life? It's not an equal situation. Biology dictates the terms. The consequence of having sex if you are a woman is that you may become pregnant. You have 2 choices. The consequence of having sex is you are a man is that you may becomee a father. You also have 2 choices. But there are laws that are immutable. A woman bears the physical burden and the man is liable for a financial burden. These are just the rules. I'm all in favour of a pre-coital 'abortion' for the man. that is he signs a legal statement saying he is unwilling to support a child and if thee woman agrees, sx can take place. After conception, it's too late. No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men.

No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved.

You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane.

Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice.

Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free.

Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:07pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:01pm: No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men. No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved. You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane. Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice. Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free. Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field.

So 9 months and the father takes the child or 18 years of maintenance and struggles to have access to that which you support. Sure  the primary impact is on the woman doing what women are designed to do, the long lasting secondary impact is irrelevant?

A man may only be asked to provide maint? No they are forced to for 18 years. All men are asking in this is if they want the child you women are forced to hand it over after the birth. Only 9 months of work, paid for by the man.

No, the law dictates the terms. You father a child, no matter the circumstances, you will pay. A woman, if nature was the dictator, would carry the child whether she liked it or not.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:30pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies?

I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway.

This law definitely goes much too far.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:14pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:07pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:01pm: No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men. No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved. You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane. Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice. Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free. Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field. So 9 months and the father takes the child or 18 years of maintenance and struggles to have access to that which you support. Sure  the primary impact is on the woman doing what women are designed to do, the long lasting secondary impact is irrelevant? A man may only be asked to provide maint? No they are forced to for 18 years. All men are asking in this is if they want the child you women are forced to hand it over after the birth. Only 9 months of work, paid for by the man. No, the law dictates the terms. You father a child, no matter the circumstances, you will pay. A woman, if nature was the dictator, would carry the child whether she liked it or not.

What women are designed to do? Are you smacking kidding me? do you know how hard it is? How much it changes you? The lifelong effects? Only 9 months worth of work? Are you kidding me?

Tell me, is he going to support her hen she has to take time off of work? Is he going to compensate her for any advancement opportunities he may miss out on for taking time off of work?

As for struggling to get access, that's what the courts are for. I'll bet there; mor women not getting their properly allotted maintenance than there are men who cannot get access.

And no. Nature dictates the terms. It is not an equal playing field.

When men can have babies, they can force the issue.

Until then i propose a virtual abortion, for men to sign pre-coitus.

It's as fair as i can be.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:22pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway. This law definitely goes much too far.

It's only the potential for life.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:22pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway. This law definitely goes much too far.

My eldest lost a child and me a grandchild to this kind women's selfishness. He's still devastated. He had no choice, if she had have kept it, he would still have no choice. Men have no choice. I think it a damned fine law.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:14pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:07pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:01pm: No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men. No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved. You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane. Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice. Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free. Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field. So 9 months and the father takes the child or 18 years of maintenance and struggles to have access to that which you support. Sure  the primary impact is on the woman doing what women are designed to do, the long lasting secondary impact is irrelevant? A man may only be asked to provide maint? No they are forced to for 18 years. All men are asking in this is if they want the child you women are forced to hand it over after the birth. Only 9 months of work, paid for by the man. No, the law dictates the terms. You father a child, no matter the circumstances, you will pay. A woman, if nature was the dictator, would carry the child whether she liked it or not. What women are designed to do? Are you smacking kidding me? do you know how hard it is? How much it changes you? The lifelong effects? Only 9 months worth of work? Are you kidding me? Tell me, is he going to support her hen she has to take time off of work? Is he going to compensate her for any advancement opportunities he may miss out on for taking time off of work? As for struggling to get access, that's what the courts are for. I'll bet there; mor women not getting their properly allotted maintenance than there are men who cannot get access. And no. Nature dictates the terms. It is not an equal playing field. When men can have babies, they can force the issue. Until then i propose a virtual abortion, for men to sign pre-coitus. It's as fair as i can be.

You brought nature into it.

Have the baby, hand it over, go live your life. Simple 9 month contract. ;)

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:22pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway. This law definitely goes much too far. My eldest lost a child and me a grandchild to this kind women's selfishness. He's still devastated. He had no choice, if she had have kept it, he would still have no choice. Men have no choice. I think it a damned fine law.

Selfishness? Because she didn't want to be a mother?

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:27pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:24pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:14pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:07pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:01pm: No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men. No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved. You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane. Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice. Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free. Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field. So 9 months and the father takes the child or 18 years of maintenance and struggles to have access to that which you support. Sure  the primary impact is on the woman doing what women are designed to do, the long lasting secondary impact is irrelevant? A man may only be asked to provide maint? No they are forced to for 18 years. All men are asking in this is if they want the child you women are forced to hand it over after the birth. Only 9 months of work, paid for by the man. No, the law dictates the terms. You father a child, no matter the circumstances, you will pay. A woman, if nature was the dictator, would carry the child whether she liked it or not. What women are designed to do? Are you smacking kidding me? do you know how hard it is? How much it changes you? The lifelong effects? Only 9 months worth of work? Are you kidding me? Tell me, is he going to support her hen she has to take time off of work? Is he going to compensate her for any advancement opportunities he may miss out on for taking time off of work? As for struggling to get access, that's what the courts are for. I'll bet there; mor women not getting their properly allotted maintenance than there are men who cannot get access. And no. Nature dictates the terms. It is not an equal playing field. When men can have babies, they can force the issue. Until then i propose a virtual abortion, for men to sign pre-coitus. It's as fair as i can be. You brought nature into it.

Yes, but not ridiculously.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:27pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:22pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway. This law definitely goes much too far. My eldest lost a child and me a grandchild to this kind women's selfishness. He's still devastated. He had no choice, if she had have kept it, he would still have no choice. Men have no choice. I think it a damned fine law. Selfishness? Because she didn't want to be a mother?

She didn't have to be a "mother", just bear the child. You know there is a difference.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:27pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:24pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:14pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:07pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:01pm: No cop outs Mothra. If the woman "chooses" to keep the child, it's forcing the man to pay and lose his own life. If the man "chooses" to want the child, it's forcing the woman to bear a child. Women get abortions everyday because of the mental and emotion impact it will have on their lives. Men do not have that freedom to choose, they should. You know damned well it's a catch 22 for men. No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved. You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane. Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice. Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free. Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field. So 9 months and the father takes the child or 18 years of maintenance and struggles to have access to that which you support. Sure  the primary impact is on the woman doing what women are designed to do, the long lasting secondary impact is irrelevant? A man may only be asked to provide maint? No they are forced to for 18 years. All men are asking in this is if they want the child you women are forced to hand it over after the birth. Only 9 months of work, paid for by the man. No, the law dictates the terms. You father a child, no matter the circumstances, you will pay. A woman, if nature was the dictator, would carry the child whether she liked it or not. What women are designed to do? Are you smacking kidding me? do you know how hard it is? How much it changes you? The lifelong effects? Only 9 months worth of work? Are you kidding me? Tell me, is he going to support her hen she has to take time off of work? Is he going to compensate her for any advancement opportunities he may miss out on for taking time off of work? As for struggling to get access, that's what the courts are for. I'll bet there; mor women not getting their properly allotted maintenance than there are men who cannot get access. And no. Nature dictates the terms. It is not an equal playing field. When men can have babies, they can force the issue. Until then i propose a virtual abortion, for men to sign pre-coitus. It's as fair as i can be. You brought nature into it. Have the baby, hand it over, go live your life. Simple 9 month contract. ;)

Speaking about pregnancy and childbirth like a man with no idea what it entails.

Women are not incubators.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:30pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:27pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:26pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:22pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:30pm: Frank wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 9:26pm: New Law Lets Dads Veto Abortions About time. Sp women have no sovereignty over their own bodies? I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway. This law definitely goes much too far. My eldest lost a child and me a grandchild to this kind women's selfishness. He's still devastated. He had no choice, if she had have kept it, he would still have no choice. Men have no choice. I think it a damned fine law. Selfishness? Because she didn't want to be a mother? She didn't have to be a "mother", just bear the child. You know there is a difference.

I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:28pm:

Yes, but not ridiculously.

Neither did I. Are women designed to bear children? Is it natural? Is that not what nature had in mind for them? Don't tell me they were for making sammiches.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:32pm:

I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father.

It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:32pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:28pm: Yes, but not ridiculously. Neither did I. Are women designed to bear children? Is it natural? Is that not what nature had in mind for them? Don't tell me they were for making sammiches.

Childbirth is but a small part of what we are "designed" for.

Using your argument, men are "designed" to be fathers ... yes?

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:34pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father. It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother.

She's not a mother anymore, but she was.

I'm sorry for your son but you can't force a woman to go through childbirth and pregnancy. You just can't.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:34pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:28pm: Yes, but not ridiculously. Neither did I. Are women designed to bear children? Is it natural? Is that not what nature had in mind for them? Don't tell me they were for making sammiches. Childbirth is but a small part of what we are "designed" for. Using your argument, men are "designed" to be fathers ... yes?

Yes, men are designed to father children, that' why we have what you don't to reproduce, you females are designed to carry them for 9 months.

You also are designed to wash dishes, you have smaller feet so you can stand closer to the sink. Some of you make damned fine sammiches too but I'm not sure if that is designed or a by product of your design.
;)

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:38pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:34pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:28pm: Yes, but not ridiculously. Neither did I. Are women designed to bear children? Is it natural? Is that not what nature had in mind for them? Don't tell me they were for making sammiches. Childbirth is but a small part of what we are "designed" for. Using your argument, men are "designed" to be fathers ... yes? Yes, men are designed to father children, you females are designed to carry them for 9 months. You also are designed to wash dishes, you have smaller feet so you can stand closer to the sink. Some of you make damned fine sammiches too but I'm not sure if that is designed or a by product of your design. ;)

Tell m Setanta, what is a father's role?

By natural law, i mean.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:36pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father. It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother. She's not a mother anymore, but she was. I'm sorry for your son but you can't force a woman to go through childbirth and pregnancy. You just can't.

Damned well should be or we shouldn't be forced to pay for your one knight stands.

How do you claim her as a mother when she never birthed a child?

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:41pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:36pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father. It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother. She's not a mother anymore, but she was. I'm sorry for your son but you can't force a woman to go through childbirth and pregnancy. You just can't. Damned well should be or we should be forced to pay for your one knight stands.

Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent.

You've said nothing about my virtual abortion idea. Why is that? Too much responsibility for men?

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:42pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:41pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:36pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father. It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother. She's not a mother anymore, but she was. I'm sorry for your son but you can't force a woman to go through childbirth and pregnancy. You just can't. Damned well should be or we should be forced to pay for your one knight stands. Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. You've said nothing about my virtual abortion idea. Why is that? Too much responsibility for men?

You virtual abortion idea will never stand. Women will not go for it.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:44pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:41pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:36pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:34pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:32pm: I'm afraid that makes her a mother. Much more so than your son being a sperm donor makes him a father. It makes my son more of a father than she would ever be a mother. He wanted the child, that is a father, she didn't, that makes her... not a mother. She's not a mother anymore, but she was. I'm sorry for your son but you can't force a woman to go through childbirth and pregnancy. You just can't. Damned well should be or we should be forced to pay for your one knight stands. Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. You've said nothing about my virtual abortion idea. Why is that? Too much responsibility for men? You virtual abortion idea will never stand. Women will not go for it.

I'm a woman and i am suggesting it.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:42pm:

Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent.

Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:45pm:

I'm a woman and i am suggesting it.

Run it past your peers. See how they like not having a hand into someone's wallet for their choice.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:45pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem.

No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too.

You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent.

Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:46pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: I'm a woman and i am suggesting it. Run it past your peers.

I have. It's met well.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:47pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number.

Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:46pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: I'm a woman and i am suggesting it. Run it past your peers. I have. It's met well.

The prob with your scheme is that no-one will log onto a web site before they bugger. Men or women.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:49pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/15/half-absent-fathers-pay-nothing-alison-sharland-varsha-gohil

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:51pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics

You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes. The govt will also snap up any tax refund to pay it.

Edit: I would place money on most parents that do not pay being women with the father as custodian.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:55pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:51pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes.

Then why i haven't i received a cent in 10 years, despite his working?

Th CSA are useless.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:57pm:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:55pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:51pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes. Then why i haven't i received a cent in 10 years, despite his working? Th CSA are useless.

Is he working "off the books?" Dob in his employer.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:59pm:

mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:57pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:55pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:51pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes. Then why i haven't i received a cent in 10 years, despite his working? Th CSA are useless. Is he working "off the books?" Dob in his employer.

Nope.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:00am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:59pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:57pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:55pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:51pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes. Then why i haven't i received a cent in 10 years, despite his working? Th CSA are useless. Is he working "off the books?" Dob in his employer. Nope.

I can't give you an answer then Mothra, everyone I know that pays child support is followed from job to job with deductions. The govt loves it as they don't have to support.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:04am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:00am: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:59pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:57pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:55pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:51pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:47pm: Setanta wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:45pm: mothra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 11:42pm: Why? The consequence of having sex is that you may become a parent. Only if you are a man. If you are a woman you can choose not to be. That is the problem. No. If you;re a man you can choose not to be too. You will be required to pay maintenance though. That doesn;t make you a parent. Do you know how many men don't pay maintenance, Setanta? It's a very high number. Bullshyte, the govt, by law garnishes wages. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/16/parents-paying-child-maintenance-csa-statistics You do understand that statistics lie? If you work, your wages will be garnished, if you fall unemployed you're still expected to pay until you can fight it saying "I don't have no monies!". It's the law, the govt will take it from your wages, you cannot escape it, just like taxes. Then why i haven't i received a cent in 10 years, despite his working? Th CSA are useless. Is he working "off the books?" Dob in his employer. Nope. I can't give you an answer then Mothra, everyone I know that pays child support is followed from job to job with deductions. The govt loves it as they don't have to support.

Read the articles i posted. It's all in there.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:06am:

Read the articles i posted. It's all in there.

That doesn't mean they are men, the govt seems to be less gungho on women not paying.

Lumping them all together and supposing they are all men is not the right way to go. I know men that are supposed to get CS from the mothers that do not. I put it down to the "dead beat dad", no such thing as DBMums.

Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:12am:

Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years.

Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths?

Maybe this is why you are confused.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:15am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused.

Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie.

What's easy?

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy?

Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that?

You know women die in childbirth, yes?

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:19am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes?

You know men suicide through stress of family, yes?

Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine.

If she doesn't want to be a mother, close the legs, get a dildo.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:22am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:19am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes? You know men suicide through stress of family, yes? Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine.

That's not an argument for forcing women to carry babies they don't want.

There is no argument for women carrying babies they don't want ... unless they agree to it.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:24am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:22am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:19am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes? You know men suicide through stress of family, yes? Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine. That's not an argument for forcing women to carry babies they don't want. There is no argument for women carrying babies they don't want ... unless they agree to it.

If that is the case there is no argument for men to pay for children the women will not abort... Unless they agree to it.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:29am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:24am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:22am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:19am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes? You know men suicide through stress of family, yes? Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine. That's not an argument for forcing women to carry babies they don't want. There is no argument for women carrying babies they don't want ... unless they agree to it. If that is the case there is no argument for men to pay for children the women will not abort... Unless they agree to it.

Not unless they specify that pre-coitus.

Otherwise, nature dictates the terms.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:31am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:29am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:24am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:22am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:19am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes? You know men suicide through stress of family, yes? Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine. That's not an argument for forcing women to carry babies they don't want. There is no argument for women carrying babies they don't want ... unless they agree to it. If that is the case there is no argument for men to pay for children the women will not abort... Unless they agree to it. Not unless they specify that pre-coitus. Otherwise, nature dictates the terms.

Nature dictates women carry the can. Law dictates men pay. Is it nature or law you want?

The highlighted invokes law, not nature.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:34am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:31am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:29am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:24am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:22am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:19am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:17am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:15am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:12am: Anyway, going off track, you women are naturally designed to have kids. If the father want them, 9 months work and hand 'em over, the dads(and grandparents) will look after the other 40 years. Did your wife have easy pregnancies and childbirths? Maybe this is why you are confused. Oldest was 36 hours labour, middle son was easy, youngest, lots of bleeding, flown to Brisbane(Yay Helicopter!), 3 month premie. What's easy? Why should a woman who doesn't want to be a mother go through that? You know women die in childbirth, yes? You know men suicide through stress of family, yes? Life sucks, make the most of it but don't whine. That's not an argument for forcing women to carry babies they don't want. There is no argument for women carrying babies they don't want ... unless they agree to it. If that is the case there is no argument for men to pay for children the women will not abort... Unless they agree to it. Not unless they specify that pre-coitus. Otherwise, nature dictates the terms. Nature dictates women carry the can. Law dictates men pay. Is it nature or law you want?

You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:35am:

You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more.

How do you make this evaluation?

And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:36am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation?

Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that?

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:37am:

And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all.

Well, I guess that means you win!  ;)

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:38am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that?

Why say that? It depends on income.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:38am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:37am: And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all. Well, I guess that means you win!  ;)

Ahhh ... so we've hit petulance then.

Must be that time of the night.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:39am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income.

$500 is based on  a good income.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:37am: And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all. Well, I guess that means you win!  ;) Ahhh ... so we've hit petulance then. Must be that time of the night.

It was a claim that deserved no more than petulance, Mothra.

more like $500 a week.

rhino wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:42am:

more like $500 a week.

LOL!

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:42am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:40am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:37am: And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all. Well, I guess that means you win!  ;) Ahhh ... so we've hit petulance then. Must be that time of the night. It was a claim that deserved no more than petulance, Mothra.

Nope. any men pay nothing at all. I have evidenced that.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:41am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income.

My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:43am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:42am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:40am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:37am: And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all. Well, I guess that means you win!  ;) Ahhh ... so we've hit petulance then. Must be that time of the night. It was a claim that deserved no more than petulance, Mothra. Nope. any men pay nothing at all. I have evidenced that.

No you havent, males who work are subject to automatic deductions for child support. I also have a friend who earns around $120,000 a year and he pays $500 a week for 2 kids. Your claims are not based in reality.

rhino wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:46am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:43am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:42am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:40am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:37am: And so often, as i have proven, men pay nothing at all. Well, I guess that means you win!  ;) Ahhh ... so we've hit petulance then. Must be that time of the night. It was a claim that deserved no more than petulance, Mothra. Nope. any men pay nothing at all. I have evidenced that. No you havent, males who work are subject to automatic deductions for child support. I also have a friend who earns around $120,000 a year and he pays $500 a week for 2 kids. Your claims are not based in reality.

LOL!

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:43am:

rhino wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:42am: more like $500 a week. LOL!

I know plenty of males who pay child support, even $500 a week for 2 kids is on the low side.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:46am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income.

What do you consider a good income?

rhino wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:43am: rhino wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:42am: more like $500 a week. LOL! I know plenty of males who pay child support, even $500 a week for 2 kids is on the low side.

LOL!

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:48am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income?

He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D

My ex earns about $1200 a week. He's ordered to pay $341 per month.

I've yet to see a cent of it.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:53am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D My ex earns about $1200 a week. He's ordered to pay $341 per month. I've yet to see a cent of it.

I don't know your circumstances or anything, I can tell you what I know. I know this because I have to pick up the slack. I'm not saying my GSon should miss out but his mum is not very helpful. We want to open a trust account for him, she will not give the birth cert for us to do it, so we don't put money into an account she controls. Now tell me that a good mum would not want that for her son. I simply will not give the money to her, if my GS suffers because of that, it's not my doing.

For edification:


http://australianmensrights.com/CSA_Calculator-Child_Support_Agency-Australia/Child_Support_Calculator_CSA_Australia.aspx


Please notice it's a men's rights calculator.

According to that calculator, to pay $500 a week for two kids would mean you are sitting on $500,000pa.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:12am:

According to that calculator, to pay $500 a week for two kids would mean you are sitting on $500,000pa.

I though we were talking 500 a month or are you talking to Honky?

I'd need her night work(dancer) income to fill that out correctly and I doubt she will hand that over.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:14am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:12am: According to that calculator, to pay $500 a week for two kids would mean you are sitting on $500,000pa. I though we were talking 500 a month or are you talking to Honky?

Rhino, not Honky. Honky wouldn't be so stupid.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:15am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:14am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:12am: According to that calculator, to pay $500 a week for two kids would mean you are sitting on $500,000pa. I though we were talking 500 a month or are you talking to Honky? Rhino, not Honky. Honky wouldn't be so stupid.

Oops. Apologies to all concerned.

See my edit above on filling that out.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 12:51am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D

You're a good dad and your wife is a good mum....... take care of your own....

Mothra - a child costs no more than what the parents can give - there are many families that get by on maybe $800 a week and maybe have several children.   Where do you think $500 a week comes from for each child?

Stop looking at theoretical figures and straighten up and fly right.....

Your Aboriginal colours show something - where the hell would an Aboriginal man with no job get $500 a month for CS?  And where the hell does the figure of $500 a month per child come from re a single Aboriginal mother with seven kids?

NEVER HAPPEN!

Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:20am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D You're a good dad and your wife is a good mum....... take care of your own....

His brothers and my father all chipped in $3g each too. It's what families do.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:22am:

Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say.

I don't make the case. Nature does.

The consequences of having sex if you're a woman is that you may become a mother.

The consequences of having seex if you're a man i that you may become a father.

From that point on, look out for the high jump.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:25am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:22am: Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say. I don't make the case. Nature does. The consequences of having sex if you're a woman is that you may become a mother. The consequences of having seex if you're a man i that you may become a father. From that point on, look out for the high jump.

Nature says you carry it, it's yours.
Law says the father must pay, not nature.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:22am:

Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say.

100% correct.

In a viable relationship, I don't see many men seeking termination of offspring....... which to me raises a very serious question about what actually constitutes a 'relationship' these days - if anything.

Maybe the 'feminists' need to draw back a bit and start looking at issues from two sides instead of one.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:20am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D You're a good dad and your wife is a good mum....... take care of your own.... Mothra - a child costs no more than what the parents can give - there are many families that get by on maybe $800 a week and maybe have several children.   Where do you think $500 a week comes from for each child? Stop looking at theoretical figures and straighten up and fly right..... Your Aboriginal colours show something - where the hell would an Aboriginal man with no job get $500 a month for CS?  And where the hell does the figure of $500 a month per child come from re a single Aboriginal mother with seven kids? NEVER HAPPEN!

What are you smoking?

$500 was Rhino's claim. I refuted it with a calculator (a men's rights calculator, mind you) that says a man needs to be earning $500,000 pa to be responsible for that figure.

Don;t tell me what children need and what money does or does not buy. I don't get any maintenance. I pay for my kids.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:26am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:25am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:22am: Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say. I don't make the case. Nature does. The consequences of having sex if you're a woman is that you may become a mother. The consequences of having seex if you're a man i that you may become a father. From that point on, look out for the high jump. Nature says you carry it, it's yours. Law says the father must pay, not nature.

No, the law provides for access for the father, if he wants it.

Don't put me in harm's way because you got lucky on a shot in the dark.

Women have the ultimate say over what happens with their bodies. Men don't have to do anything at all.

But when a child comes into the world, it requires attention. A man can choose whether he steps up or not.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:28am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:20am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D You're a good dad and your wife is a good mum....... take care of your own.... Mothra - a child costs no more than what the parents can give - there are many families that get by on maybe $800 a week and maybe have several children.   Where do you think $500 a week comes from for each child? Stop looking at theoretical figures and straighten up and fly right..... Your Aboriginal colours show something - where the hell would an Aboriginal man with no job get $500 a month for CS?  And where the hell does the figure of $500 a month per child come from re a single Aboriginal mother with seven kids? NEVER HAPPEN! What are you smoking? $500 was Rhino's claim. I refuted it with a calculator (a men's rights calculator, mind you) that says a man needs to be earning $500,000 pa to be responsible for that figure. Don;t tell me what children need and what money does or does not buy. I don't get any maintenance. I pay for my kids.

You didn't refute it as you need the mothers income. Without it you cannot fill out the form.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:36am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:28am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:20am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:48am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:46am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:41am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:39am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:38am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:36am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 12:35am: You are conveniently overlooking that women pay more. How do you make this evaluation? Say a man is orderd to pay $500 a month, do you not think a child costs more than that? Why say that? It depends on income. $500 is based on  a good income. My eldest pays that and he's not on a good income. He still had to pay that when he was not working a few moths back as we discussed about depression and we had to carry him. I'm still paying off doctors bills etc but his CS has continued. His tax return was nothing after back pay from when he had no income. What do you consider a good income? He's a 4th year fitter and turner, look it up. Child support! He's cost me $10g in the last six months.  ;D You're a good dad and your wife is a good mum....... take care of your own.... Mothra - a child costs no more than what the parents can give - there are many families that get by on maybe $800 a week and maybe have several children.   Where do you think $500 a week comes from for each child? Stop looking at theoretical figures and straighten up and fly right..... Your Aboriginal colours show something - where the hell would an Aboriginal man with no job get $500 a month for CS?  And where the hell does the figure of $500 a month per child come from re a single Aboriginal mother with seven kids? NEVER HAPPEN! What are you smoking? $500 was Rhino's claim. I refuted it with a calculator (a men's rights calculator, mind you) that says a man needs to be earning $500,000 pa to be responsible for that figure. Don;t tell me what children need and what money does or does not buy. I don't get any maintenance. I pay for my kids. You didn't refute it as you need the mothers income. Without it you cannot fill out the form.

I've filled out all of my examples on the premise the mother was on the SPP.

If she earns mor, the father' rate of pay will go down.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:32am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:26am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:25am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:22am: Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say. I don't make the case. Nature does. The consequences of having sex if you're a woman is that you may become a mother. The consequences of having seex if you're a man i that you may become a father. From that point on, look out for the high jump. Nature says you carry it, it's yours. Law says the father must pay, not nature. No, the law provides for access for the father, if he wants it. Don't put me in harm's way because you got lucky on a shot in the dark. Women have the ultimate say over what happens with their bodies. Men don't have to do anything at all. But when a child comes into the world, it requires attention. A man can choose whether he steps up or not.

But if it doesn't come into this world, that also is the woman's choice. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Now why can't you leave it as "A man can choose whether he steps up or not." You don't want that, you want them to be forced to pay for 18 years as opposed to a man may want a woman to carry a baby to term and hand it over for him to pay and care for, cutting out the middle (wo)man.

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:40am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:32am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:26am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:25am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:22am: Anyway, I don't think you've made a good case for why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Your belly, your choice? Don't expect someone else to pay for it. If you expect them to pay, expect them to have a say. I don't make the case. Nature does. The consequences of having sex if you're a woman is that you may become a mother. The consequences of having seex if you're a man i that you may become a father. From that point on, look out for the high jump. Nature says you carry it, it's yours. Law says the father must pay, not nature. No, the law provides for access for the father, if he wants it. Don't put me in harm's way because you got lucky on a shot in the dark. Women have the ultimate say over what happens with their bodies. Men don't have to do anything at all. But when a child comes into the world, it requires attention. A man can choose whether he steps up or not. But if it doesn't come into this world, that also is the woman's choice. Don't you see how wrong that is? Now why can't you leave it as "A man can choose whether he steps up or not." You don't want that, you want them to be forced to pay for 18 years as opposed to a man may want a woman to carry a baby to term and hand it over for him to pay and care for, cutting out the middle (wo)man.

Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy.

You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes?

And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus.

I don't smoke anything, and access for the father is totally dependent on the mother and often strictly controlled. I've known the most gentle souls who are forced to ONLY visit their own child when the mother feels it suits her, and then are under close supervision from some paid lackey of some agency....

Don't make me laugh..... this is not equality.  A woman can choose to take precautions or not - if she wishes to be 'independent' - let her be so.... but to behave as an 'independent' and then demand that someone else support that life choice is absurd.

All that is, is the ongoing responsibility on the man to support a 'family' he does not possess and never intended.... same as divorce.... men continue, in this day and age of 'strong, independent women' to pay for the family they have no rights in and no input into and no benefit from.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:47am:

Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy. You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes?

Very rarely in this age, yes? If it was eliminated entirely I don't think you'd change your mind.
something like 0.007?

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:49am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:47am: Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy. You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes? Very rarely in this age, yes?

Not as rare as you would think.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:48am:

And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus.

So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so.......

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:50am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:49am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:47am: Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy. You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes? Very rarely in this age, yes? Not as rare as you would think.

6.8 per 100,000
Higher risk for those over 40.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:50am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:49am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:47am: Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy. You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes? Very rarely in this age, yes? Not as rare as you would think.

How is that relevant to enforced payment for a family that one party has no part in?  Throwing down the Victim Card doesn't work here....

Many men die going to work to support their families.... does that mean they should be paid extra if their family is taken away from them?  ::)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:51am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so.......

No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion.

If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable.

It's the law of the land.

Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:53am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:50am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:49am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:47am: Again. you talk about pregnancy and childbirth as though it was easy. You do know women die in prgnancy and childbirth, yes? Very rarely in this age, yes? Not as rare as you would think. How is that relevant to enforced payment for a family that one party has no part in?  Throwing down the Victim Card doesn't work here.... Many men die going to work to support their families.... does that mean they should be paid extra if their family is taken away from them?  ::)

No part in?

Surey you jest?

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:53am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses.

What happened to nature?

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:54am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:53am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses. What happened to nature?

That too.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:53am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses.

Ah - so we fall back on 'the law of the land'!  But the discussion is whether the current 'law of the land' is realistic, fair and viable.....  so stating that persisting with the current situation holds no merit in the discussion...... and only leaves brute force.......... take it or we'll take it for you....

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:54am:

That too.

Make up your mind! Catch 22 for men. ;D

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:56am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:53am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses. Ah - so we fall back on 'the law of the land'!  But the discussion is whether the current 'law of the land' is realistic, fair and viable.....  so stating that persisting with the current situation holds no merit in the discussion...... and only leaves brute force.......... take it or we'll take it for you....

Jesus.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:54am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:53am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses. What happened to nature? That too.

You got it, Mothra.. she CHOOSES.  So in all that when does HE get to choose?  ::)

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:56am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: That too. Make up your mind! Catch 22 for men. ;D

No it's not. If men have sex, there is a likelihood that they will become fathers.

No catch 22.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:57am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:53am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses. What happened to nature? That too. You got it, Mothra.. she CHOOSES.  So in all that when does HE get to choose?  ::)

When he learns to grow his own babies.

Hopefully the man was intelligent enough to spread his seed with a reasonable woman with which h could negotiate .... if h just got hs end away with any random then he may just find there;s a price to pay.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:58am:

Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:56am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: That too. Make up your mind! Catch 22 for men. ;D No it's not. If men have sex, there is a likelihood that they will become fathers. No catch 22.

Yes there is, the catch 22 is the woman's choice. There is no mans choice.
Why can't the father say that baby is half my sperm/dna and i want it terminated?

Setanta wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 2:00am:

mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:58am: Setanta wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:56am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:54am: That too. Make up your mind! Catch 22 for men. ;D No it's not. If men have sex, there is a likelihood that they will become fathers. No catch 22. Yes there is, the catch 22 is the woman's choice.

It' the woman's body. Of course it's her choice.

mothra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2017 at 1:56am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:56am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:53am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:51am: mothra wrote on Feb 4th, 2017 at 1:48am: And i maintain, a man should be able to opt out ... prior to coitus. So can the sheila, love..... if she doesn't want to get pregnant she can always keep it in her panties.... but if she wishes to 'go it alone' - she is perfectly free to do so....... No. A woman has the perfectly legal right to an abortion. If he chooses to keep th child and further chooses to pursue it, the father is liable. It's the law of the land. Sh will still shoulder the vast majority of the burden. Whatever shee chooses. Ah - so we fall back on 'the law of the land'!  But the discussion is whether the current 'law of the land' is realistic, fair and viable.....  so stating that persisting with the current situation holds no merit in the discussion...... and only leaves brute force.......... take it or we'll take it for you.... Jesus.

You've been reading my latest short story..... Jesus is the son of my principal character and the God named Jenovah - or Jenny for short....

And I ain't smokin' nothin', babe..... not my style....

---