Equal rights?

Remove all ads!

Now I'm not going to pretend that this small article wont offend some of you, I just feel the need to write it after something that has happened to a good friend of mine which set me thinking.

Now this friend, lets call him Dave, likes a good time. In fact he really likes a good time, the sort of person you know will be out on the town or at a party almost every night. During the day he works as an electrician, having just finished his apprentiship. He had an almost garenteed job for life, which although it doesn't pay in 6 figure sums it would keep him comfortable for the foreseeable future.

Now me and Dave are very good friends, in fact we go out and hit the town together almost every week and have done for the last few years, a little over a year ago Dave hit it off with a girl who we will call Sally. One thing lead to another and soon enough they ended up back at Dave's house and were at it like rabbits, next morning they went their separate ways and that was that.

What is the point of all this? Well a few weeks after this event sally was all but forgotten until Dave received a phone call.

"Hi Dave?"
"Hello?"
"It's Sally I'm Preggers"
"Wha..."
*click*

The whole call. Sally put the phone down at that very moment. I was in the room at the time and to say Dave was shocked is quite the understatement. Imagine, if you will, a young man, with a nice respectable job and an active social life, well liked and a salt of the earth sort of person. Now he has just found out he's going to be a father.

After much thought and him being almost reduced to an emotional wreck decided to phone sally to inform her that he
"wasn't ready for a child and wouldn't object if she were to have an abortion, and that if she didn't then he wanted no part of the child's life."
To which she listened said simply O.K. and put the phone down. Now odd as it may seem neither contacted the other at all throughout the pregnancy. We assumed that Sally had gone to a clinic and had the abortion and so after a small hiccup Dave's life was back on track.

Until several months later he was informed he had to pay child support, I don't know exactly how it happened as I was on holiday at the time, but I don't think it really matters. Dave's life is again falling apart in front of his eyes. A huge amount of his pay check now goes to Sally every month. While Sally sits on her, now fat, arse all day watching Trisha. She has no job and instead of getting off her aforementioned gluttonous arse and looking she spends her afternoons in the pub\at the shops\getting her dole check mouthing off about how much of a bastard Dave is.

The child who we shall call Steve, is always being told how much of a bad man daddy is and the fortnightly visits that Dave makes are always quite sour occasions. Now don't get me wrong, Dave would make an amazing father, even though he wanted nothing to do with the child he loves it just as much as my Dad loved me.

So how come doleite scum like Sally can sit about in front of Jerry Springer and play mummy in her council house covered in cat piss and in a neighborhood of drugs and violence while Dave gets to play Daddy to a miserable kid every other weekend and plays 1/2 his wages for the privilege. How come Daddy can't stay at home? Even if Dave beat the child with a stick every hour for the rest of its life he would make a far better parent than Sally.

Maybe this is a one off case but I don't think it is, for example when having sex a mans only form of contraception, short of the snip, is a condom which is happens to be the least reliable. While a woman has a whole range of weapons at her disposal, from pills and patches to jabs and scrapes. If the condom bursts or the woman doesn't take her pill and the man doesn't want the pregnancy, short of going round her house with a knitting needle hes screwed. While the woman can go running to the doctors and get all manner of potions and lotions and if they fail she can go get it scraped out and chucked on the fire.

What if the mans religion doesn't allow the destruction of an unborn child? Can he stop her going to a clinic and getting it sucked into oblivion? Legally it is half his. Or what if, like our Dave, he looks at himself in the mirror and thinks, I can't afford a child now, this isn't a stable relationship (hell its not a relationship at all) its not fair to bring a child into the world. Can he then order the woman to have an abortion?

Can he ****

Its the woman's body and the woman's choice. The most common line. So why then is it the father that has to suffer for the rest of his life while mommy watches GMTV and tells everyone how bad a father Dave is?
NEWSFLASH If you didn't want the baby, then how are you really expected to be the worlds number one father?
NEWSFLASH If the fathers such a bastard then why did you put your legs behind your ears for him in the first place?
NEWSFLASH This isn't Daddy's little mistake.

Since only the woman can decide if she carries to term or not then 100% of the responsibility should be on her shoulders. If you can't support the baby without stealing half of the fathers wages and ruining his life then you shouldn't carry to full term, otherwise congratulations on ruining two lives just so you can sit on your lazy arse and eat your McDonalds every day.

Giving birth is a privilege not a right, unfortunately its not one you can easily take away. The problem is these sort of women want the right to give birth when they want, how they want and where they want, and they don't give a **** whos life they ruin in the process.

And lets not forget the child suffers here as well, growing up in a hating rather than a loving environment and constantly being told he's Daddys little **** up cant be good for him.
I could start on the rights of the father when the parents split, or if the woman has an affair... but then I think there is a word limit on these posts, I'll sum it up with.

Men and women have equal rights, just as long as it doesn't effect the woman's right to ruin a mans life so she can be the victim.

 

Surely that's not equal rights. They made the kid together, so they should pay for it together. Not only the father, and there's no reason the father should also pay anything to the mother. He should only pay some more 'maintenance' if the kid is living with the mother. There should be better legal means to get rid of such badmouthing as she indulges in and to assure that the money doesn't pay for the mother's easy life of doing nothing. Well, it's true that such women should never have children, but responsibility is responsibility once the child is born. They were both irresponsible with their joyful and carefree sweet screwing, and also Dave when suggesting abortion (even if he doesn't see that as a kill but just destruction of a few cells, that's still a human being otherwise born and living), but what she's doing now is outrageous and if I were Dave, it would result in a lawsuit or five. Then she would perhaps also hand over the child custody if her free spare cash suddenly returned to Dave and she had to find a job and pay for herself as well as, most probably, give up most of her pleasures.

There's a moral for men: don't screw just about anyone just because you feel like it, or your sweet money will get halved.

It's right, that parents pay according to their income, not each the same amount, if there's income disparity. However, it's still not right if the money doesn't go to the child's needs in some proportion but to the parent who has custody to decide arbitrarily where the money goes.

 

It's a shame what happend, but that's really not what every situation is like. Single mothers have it tough, and because of that many may become bitter. Dave can probably go to court and let the judge decide if Sally is an unfit mother. Now here's something I don't know. If the father was taking care of the child, would the mother have to send 1/2 her check?

Life lessons never come easy...

 

How did he know the child was his? Was a test done? It sounded like it was a random hook-up, maybe she had others?

Sadly, because Dave has acknowledged the child as his...He would be the de facto father, if not the de jure father and would be required to pay support. If he had denied paternity and refused to acknowledge the child, he may have been able to fight the support attachment.

 

Tough situation. That's why making laws is hard I'd wager. There's no way it can ever be equal and righteous for every individual.

I do feel for this Dave, I really do. If I were put in a similar situation I wouldn't know what to do. As that case is quite much a borderliner on wether you should take the justice into your own hands or not. Not much to do except trying to prove the mother unfit for parentage, or even as much as claiming that she had planned for this situation, or is currently using it, fully for her own benefit and not the child's.

I find it ridiculous that one child would require half of Dave's wage anyway.

Your point about who has more control over wether there even is a child or not was good. However, unless a man was raped, he always carries part of the responsibility. Not all of it, maybe not even half of it, but some. I'm not a guy to be afflicted of the disease of brainless mating. Being the exception that I am, might make my thoughts different from others. Still, I've never understood the habit of spreading your seeds and those sexually transmitted diseases all around the town every week, so I hardly feel any compassion on that part.

 

Ha ha ha! Good joke. Next time I hear about an electrican charging fifty quid for changing a plug-fuse I'll think of Dave and laugh my head off.

Equal rights is about balance. It is about looking at situations from both sides, and then coming to a fair decision. Where is Sally's side presented in the above bit of vitriol?

Nappies smell of piss, not meadow flowers. Poor people live on poor, drug filled estates because they have no choice. Even 'salt of the earth' mothers sit at home and watch TV, they often have to, as it is a crime to leave a baby unattended.

Dave has been given a son and heir, and he has gotten it cheap. In a normal relationship he would be handing over his entire wage, not just half of it.

Stop holding Dave's hand, and go around and see if there is anything you can do to make Sally's life a bit more bearable.

[ September 25, 2003, 19:04: Message edited by: Bluin ]

 

A few points to adress, I dont know how much Dave actualy pays but I do know its ALOT his standard of living has gone down durastically. He did use a condom when he was having it away, and I dont know if there were any tests as I was on holiday and then didnt see him for a while but he seemed VERY sure it was his. But then that could just be him acepting it.

Still I must say Bluin are you real?
Life may be tough, but then you either get over it or die. Dave is getting on with his life, I dont think I have heard him moan about the child once, Sally is well... words fail me they really do...

 

I'm for real, and actions speak louder than words, Mr Writer.

 

I disagree with this. Not to stick up for Sally, but she's just as much to blame for the situation as Dave. According to you, Dave is a smart, upwardly mobile individual who had a decent career on the way as an electrition. If he's smart enough to understand the consequences of sticking his finger in a light socket, then he should also be smart enough to understand the consequences of sticking his weener in white trash. No one forced him to have unprotected sex. True, Sally seems like 10 pounds of sh*t in a 5 pound bag, but Dave needs to take responsibility for his actions. It looks like he's doing that. But to say Sally should be 100% responsible because she had the audacity to carry her own child is rather silly to me.

My tuppence.

 

I guess that the issue here, if I understand the topic rant, is that the child has put a big crimp in Dave's "fun-loving" lifstyle. Pardon me while I get out the world's smallest violin and say welcome to the adult world, where one must live up to his/her responsibilities every freaking day.

Actions have consquences, and abortion, as those of us know who value human life over a few extra drinks down at the local pub, is a really poor form of contraception.

As for the sub-topic of who can have children:

Having children is a right, and not for the privileged few as has been suggested here. It's not just for the rich. Nor is it just for the educated. To suggest such a thing is the worst form of elitism. Hell, it goes beyond elitism: It is a violation of human rights to sit in judgment of who can have children and who can't.
What's next? Those who are only of good nordic stock with blue eyes and have the right height and weight requirements? Or a degree from the right college?

Having children falls under basic "inalienable rights." They are rights that can neither be given nor taken away by man. Procreation is a God given right. It means, even fat women who eat at McDonalds can have children, as Dave has discovered.

[ September 25, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

BTA - Agreed.

 

Touche - didn't see that one. Agreed as well.

 

I am one of those who believe it might be possible that Dave is not really Steve's father (considering the way you describe Sally she sounds like the type to sleep around) and if Dave really wanted to get released from his payments to Sally then he could ask/sue to have a blood test done. If instead Dave wants to take full time care of Steve then he could opt to sue Sally as an unfit parent (citing such reasons as that she spends that majority of her time in pubs and treats Steve as simply a mistake of the father's) and then he could attempt to bring up Steve on his own. (A feat I'd be delighted to hear about)

Now while I do not think this is the best of situations there are perhaps a few things that need to be taken into consideration. Both Sally and Dave deserve full responsibility for their actions. While Sally could have used birth control or had an abortion (both of which I'm morally against) Dave could have used a little self-control and not decided to sleep with such a slut. Hopefully he's learned from THAT mistake. Thus they both at fault for choosing to procreate freely in the first place unless you wish to imply that Dave is such a moron that he has absolutely no control over his actions. (Rather like bunnies) Should he have to pay half of his income? Probably not. Sally should probably be paying for the child as well and the kid probably isn't quite that expensive.

But once again, let's take something else into account here. How many jobs do you think a single woman taking care of a baby/toddler/young child can get? As a baby, she'd almost absolutely have to do one that was at home and that limits things to a possible telemarketer depending what company she worked for, freelance writer, and desktop publishing. Not too many people can make a decent living off those. And what if Sally's talents lay elsewhere? Perhaps she was a very decent mathmatician in high school or she'd make a great secretary but now she can't go get a job involving that when she has to take care of a baby at the same time. Now later on as little Steve grows up she could put him in daycare. But daycares are often expensive and maybe the best job Sally could get is as a secretary at a high school. Now maybe Sally and Steve could live off of that job but that doesn't even take into account the daycare price. Perhaps when Steve goes to first grade things will get easier. Except of course that elementary schools get out at 3 and most adults work until 5.

Now I'm guessing that Sally probably doesn't want a job at this point. Or maybe the area she lives in doesn't have any job opportunities for her field of work and moving is expensive and would prevent Steve from seeing Dave. Or perhaps she's just lazy. Or perhaps she's fallen into depression from being out of work for three years and took to drinking heavily and is now so drunk most of the time that she wouldn't be able to get a job anyways. Welcome to the real world and the common epidemic that plagues it.

Now Dave probably shouldn't have to pay half of his salary when Sally's mostly the one benefitting from it. But Dave probably shouldn't have had sex with some slut he just randomly met and expected nothing to happen from it. What if he'd gotten aids or HIV? *sigh* There are a hundred thousand other what ifs I could list but I won't. In short, Dave's an adult so he should act like one. He wants to fix the situation? All well and good, why doesn't he try taking full responsibility of caring for little Steve. Then Steve would be away from Sally, he wouldn't have to pay money to Sally and maybe Sally would actually be relieved and Dave enlightened. All I can say is, hopefully things work out and Dave thinks before he acts now.

 

Having children is more of a curse.

The guy screws the girl, the girl gets pregnant and must suffer for nine months and a painful labor. The guy doesn't suffer at all.

But.

In this I am mostly on Dave's side, even if I am a bloody feminist.

If Dave used a condom, that's good. That is what a guy must do.

But Sally should have taken pills or used another form of contraception.

It was a little of Dave's fault as well, as he agreed to have sex with Sally without confirming that she was using contraception.

And if you get pregnant, either deliver the kid or get an abortion.

My ethics justify abortion and I do not want to start arguing, as I have done it already and will stay to my view.

I do not believe in any God, so don't assume anything.

 

Glad to see the mainly intelectual points being rasied here. Dave does love his son and takes as much care of him as is possible. I understand that getting a job with a child is hard but then when you havent worked all your life does it make a diffrence?

And I also agree Dave's been a bit stupid. But then aren't we all nown and then. A poor excuse but well yeah ok I can't defend him on that one.

And Bulin indeed actions do speak louder than words, but why do you assume I do nothing? Really do you know anything about me, you dont even know my gender yet you are writing me off as a no good piece of crap who slags of women and does sweet FA to help, please don't. I know there are genuine cases where the law has helped singe mothers whos patners cheated on them for instance but then it wouldnt make as good reading if I just wrote about that would it

 

Well, gender wasn't much of a question considering your name is Mr. Writer.

 

lol

So when did you meet Mystra?

 

News flash!

Having SEX can cause PREGNANCY!

If the child is his, he should stand by his actions and take care of his child. As far as the child support, this is not news either. It is pretty common knowledge that men have to pay child support when they father a child.

Again, if it is his kid, then he should take care of his responsibilities. There are no surprises here.

 

@ Mr Writer...
I met her about 2 years ago in a bar. I said "did it hurt?" She said "did what hurt?" I said "When you fell from heaven in the Time of Troubles and had to walk the earth as a lowly mortal." She said, "yeah, a little."

We were talking and she popped the question, "D'ya wanna be a powerful sorcerer with vast knowledge and power?" I said "Sure. Your place or mine?" And it kinda progressed from there, until, here I am, one of Mystra's Chosen.

Or were you trying to say that a name means absolutely nothing?