Sunday, June 12, 2005

Court Ruling Could Make it More Difficult for Single Women to have Families

“Baby Makes Three
N.J. Court Allows Lesbian Co-Mother on Birth Certificate
Arthur S. Leonard

Last week, a New Jersey Judge handed down a ruling with potentially wide-spread impact for the state’s families, granting full parental rights to the lesbian partner of a woman who gave birth from artificial insemination.

Kimberly Robinson, 35, the birth mother and her partner, Jeanne LoCicero, 31, met in 2003, registered as domestic partners in New York City while they were residing in Brooklyn and were married last year in Canada.

In New Jersey, a lesbian or gay man applying for adoption must go through a lengthy process that, according to one attorney who argued on behalf of the lesbian mothers, takes between six months and two years “threatening the well being’ of a child, particularly in the event that the child’s legal parent dies or becomes incapacitated.

However rather then apply for a second parent adoption, LoCicero petitioned to be considered as a full legal parent.

The couple aimed to take advantage of New Jersey’s statute governing ‘artificial insemination’ under which the husband of a woman inseminated with donor sperm is considered the child’s legal father.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Patricia Medina Talbert ordered that “Jeanne LoCicero is presumed to be the parent of Vivian Ryan LoCierco born April 30, 2005” and made her decision retroactive to April 30, so that LoCierco would be a legal parent of Vivian from the moment of birth and inscribed as such on the child’s birth certificate.”

“This court has before it strong public policy that establishes unequivocally this State’s focus upon the best interest of children,” Talbert concluded. “The Court is unable to discern any State’s interest that would preclude LoCierco from the protection of the statute.”

Information Courtesy of Gay News June 2 – 8, 2005




Probably MOST single mothers, both gay and straight, would have been better off if this couple had used the procedures already set out for adoption, as opposed to establishing new family policy.

For this particular ruling can and probably eventually will come back to haunt other single mothers who might want to use anonymous donors to create families.

First of all although many are not aware of it, a sea change has taken place in the clientele that uses anonymous donors. Although touted for years as a method for married couples to have children when the problem is a man’s low sperm count, better methods of IVF now enable even men with the lowest sperm count to be able to have their own children. Thus, fewer and fewer married couples have the need to use anonymous donors anymore. Instead singletons (women both gay and straight) now make up two-thirds of the clients using anonymous donors to create their families.

Many of these singletons use anonymous donors, who have no legal rights to either custody/visitation or legal/financial obligations to whatever child is created from their donation. They are paid a small fee and then disappear back into the anonymity from which they came benefiting all three parties involved. The male donor has no legal or financial obligation to any children created from his donation, the mother has no worries about losing her child should a sudden custody battle erupt and the child is secure with its loving, committed one-parent family that it’s not going to be abducted by a crazed and spiteful non-custodial parent, possibly never to see it’s mother again.

Of course in the 80/90s, more and more women began utilizing this method of creating families, as our own men became progressively more selfish, unstable and childlike. The western male’s constant fixation with remaining single for longer and longer periods was at odds with the biological time clock of women and, quite frankly, we faced extinction if women didn’t have the sense to act when we did. Nevertheless many people have resented women taking the step of creating families on our own through the use of artificial insemination and have been ceaselessly working on ways to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for single women to continue getting donor sperm.

From phony medical reports to slanted statistics on single motherhood, everything but the kitchen sink has been tossed into the mix here in an attempt to derail this project, but since nothing appeared to stop the trend of women obtaining their dream of motherhood through anonymous sperm donors, the forces that wish to stop this have now begun using a new tactic.

Under the guise of ‘best interest of the child’ many have managed to get laws passed in some countries even outlawing anonymous donors. Now in England, for instance, all donors must be registered and the children, once adults, allowed their contact information. Of course, this will eventually morph, as its framers intend, into laws making donors responsible for child support or allowing them visitation BEFORE the children are 18, thus making moot the whole point of women using anonymous donors. As it is, every country that has passed these sorts of contact laws has seen a drop of about 85% in donations almost overnight, and again, this is the intent of the law to STOP single women from having children using anonymous sperm donation. It has NOTHING to do with the best interest of the children involved here; but instead is a tool being used to stop single women from having children.

It’s that simple.

Thus I return to the recent New Jersey Superior Court ruling that allowed two lesbian mothers to BOTH be placed on the birth certificate using the ‘best interest of children’ as it’s logic. Unfortunately, this ruling has the potential to morph into a public policy that it IS ALWAYS in the best interest of children created from anonymous donors, to have two parents’ names on their birth certificates and then we are a hop, skip and a jump away from it being illegal for single women to use anonymous donor sperm any longer…

This is the danger I see.

Of course, I’m happy for the two women involved in the individual case even though they could have gotten the same result waiting six months or so and not have jeopardized the reproduction hopes of millions of women in western civilization and possibly western civilization itself if we don’t keep our population numbers up.

That could have happened.

That it didn’t speaks to the need for women to become aware that when they bring these sorts of policy changing cases into court, more is at stake then just their own family…

28 comments:

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

"Nevertheless many people have resented women taking the step of creating families on our own through the use of artificial insemination and have been ceaselessly working on ways to make it more difficult,"

Probably due to the rise of uber-traditionalist ideologues within the political sphere (ie: arch-conservative Christian Republicans) who are obsessed with making the hetero-nuclear family model the only legally and socially acceptable family structure. Independent women who decide to use anonymous sperm donations to reproduce of course present a threat to them because they lack the essential and domineering paternal aspect of the hetero-nuclear family model (and because they're independent and unmarried women--that's a big 'no-no' according to them). If a woman decides to use anonymous sperm donation instead, whose going to be "the man of the house, where's he?!" And we all know how "panicky" traditionalists and other people can get when we bring Lesbian/Gay couples who want to have children, into the issue.

NYMOM said...

"Probably due to the rise of uber-traditionalist ideologues within the political sphere (ie: arch-conservative Christian Republicans) who are obsessed with making the hetero-nuclear family model the only legally and socially acceptable family structure. Independent women who decide to use anonymous sperm donations to reproduce of course present a threat to them because they lack the essential and domineering paternal aspect of the hetero-nuclear family model (and because they're independent and unmarried women--that's a big 'no-no' according to them). If a woman decides to use anonymous sperm donation instead, whose going to be "the man of the house, where's he?!"



Well it's important for lesbian couples to realize that when they take their cases to court...as decisions that appear to benefit them in the short term can turn around and disadvantage ALL SINGLE MOTHERS (both gay and straight) down the pike...as now I can see a decision coming out of NJ (using that best interest of the child to have two parents at birth) that either lets an anonymous sperm donor change his mind and want his name on the birth certificate OR turns down a single woman's request to use the services of an anonymous donor...

AND both of these scenarios could be based on that NJ ruling that on the surface benefitted a lesbian couple...so then ALL single women wanting to have families will be screwed...

Anonymous said...

"It has NOTHING to do with the best interest of the children involved here; but instead is a tool being used to stop single women from having children."

Excellent! I'm glad there is a law with such a useful purpose. If this is the purpose then it will not only clearly benefit the children involved, it will also clearly benefit society as a whole.

For once, a good law!

NYMOM said...

Benefit society how?

By driving western civilization into extinction????

You dope...you don't even know what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

"Of course in the 80/90s, more and more women began utilizing this method of creating families, as our own men became progressively more selfish, unstable and childlike. The western male’s constant fixation with remaining single for longer and longer periods was at odds with the biological time clock of women and, quite frankly, we faced extinction if women didn’t have the sense to act when we did."

So, it's our fault. The western female's constant fixation with "not being controlled", "being a goddess" and "having a career" had nothing to do with driving off men out of their lives until their natural assets weren't enough to make them go back (who wants to have a know-it-all shrew as a wife, anyway?)

You see baby, it's our sperm. We decide about it, not you.

Anonymous said...

"Benefit society how?

By driving western civilization into extinction????

You dope...you don't even know what you are talking about."




Oh he does, he referres to the inevitably collapse of this society (eg Roman Empire) and the fact he thinks its the only way to get us out of this mess and restore nature and balance.

Every problem facing our youth, marriages, work ethics, will all be corrected when all people will be forced to stand on their own 2 feet.

(Trust us, we know more than you can imagine on this subject.)

NYMOM said...

"So, it's our fault. The western female's constant fixation with "not being controlled", "being a goddess" and "having a career" had nothing to do with driving off men out of their lives until their natural assets weren't enough to make them go back (who wants to have a know-it-all shrew as a wife, anyway?)


Yes, well at least you're honest and admit that women's 'natural assets' are the only thing that men are interested in...

BTW, you all LOVED it when women starting having careers and using birth control...you ALL loved it...it meant you didn't have to support women any longer and could have all the sex you wanted with no fear of an unexpected pregnancy intruding on your bachelorhood...

So MEN benefitted from ALL of these things...ALL of them...actually, MEN invented ALL of the reproductive technology that first entered the market...

So you shot yourselves in the foot...You created the frankenstein monster and NOW must live with the result of your OWN CHOICES...

The world that we live in today is the one CREATED by MEN...

Anyway, it's your choice, your decision...women WILL have children and men will be the losers if they continue with their obsession with acting like teenagers...

It took about a generation, 20 or so years from the time you all wanted to be like Hugh Hefner and never get married, just have irresponsible sex with as many women as you could climb into, and spend all of your time in sport bars...one generation before women began having children without the benefit of marriage...

So IF men chose to continue with their stupidity and giving all this trouble about marriage, children, custody fights, parental abductions, etc., I predict in about another generation women will have taken another step in the direction of having children minus a father and you all will be even more removed from children and families then you are now...



"You see baby, it's our sperm. We decide about it, not you."

Well let's see if OTHER men feel the same way as you, since many others don't mind selling what is their to sell for a few hundred dollars...

NYMOM said...

"Oh he does, he referres to the inevitably collapse of this society (eg Roman Empire) and the fact he thinks its the only way to get us out of this mess and restore nature and balance.

Every problem facing our youth, marriages, work ethics, will all be corrected when all people will be forced to stand on their own 2 feet."


Well fine...

I'm sure that's the answer to all of our problems...let's get everybody a job and make us all self-supporting...

AND yet you and your friends keep acting like 'career women' and "know it all shrews" are the cause of every problem????

So in essence, like I said originally, you all don't know what you are talking about...look to yourselves for the solutions you seek...not trying to change womens' behavior but your own...

Anonymous said...

"So IF men chose to continue with their stupidity and giving all this trouble about marriage, children, custody fights, parental abductions, etc., I predict in about another generation women will have taken another step in the direction of having children minus a father and you all will be even more removed from children and families then you are now..."

Hello? Haven't you thought that perhaps men will decide not to put up with so many problems and live alone? As you say, men have no maternal instinct, so it wouldn't be a problem for us. We always can buy sex (the only thing that interest us, according to you).

"Well let's see if OTHER men feel the same way as you, since many others don't mind selling what is their to sell for a few hundred dollars..."

Well, since most smart men won't be sucked into donating sperm (moreover with the current rulings saying that an anonymous donor may be liable of child support), you will be left with those men who donate for money, meaning, sperm from jobless, low-IQ men (even if women want sperm from a successful, smart doctor). Good luck with supporting their children.

NYMOM said...

"Hello? Haven't you thought that perhaps men will decide not to put up with so many problems and live alone? As you say, men have no maternal instinct, so it wouldn't be a problem for us. We always can buy sex (the only thing that interest us, according to you)."


Well let's see in the age of AIDS and numerous other sexually-transmitted diseases how long men will last who do that too often...



"Well, since most smart men won't be sucked into donating sperm (moreover with the current rulings saying that an anonymous donor may be liable of child support), you will be left with those men who donate for money, meaning, sperm from jobless, low-IQ men (even if women want sperm from a successful, smart doctor). Good luck with supporting their children."


First of all, women who pick an anonymous sperm donor are NOT doing it expecting child support and involvement from the donor...actually that's why they are doing it ANONYMOUSLY...so as NOT to have to worry about a custody fight or child abduction in their future...they're looking to avoid hassles for themselves and their future children, not spend a whole lot of money to create legal aggravation for themselves and whatever kids they conceive...

Second of all, there has been NO ruling yet anywhere that a truly anonymous sperm donor was liable for child support...those child support rulings were ALL regarding donors who were known to the woman and had an informal agreement with her...the only thing those rulings demonstrate is that informal agreements vis-a-vis sperm donors are not legally enforcable. Which anybody with any sense knew already...

Although the ruling probably was another prime example of western civilization shooting itself in the foot again, as it sounded the death knell for many women who wanted children (w/o taking a chance on losing them to a jackass sometime in the future) to have them using a far cheaper informal sperm donor agreement; as most of us won't be able to afford the expense involved in going to a service that involves truly anonymous donors...so that's another 'hit' to our population numbers.

Although I do believe eventually laws will exist that a donor CAN NO LONGER be anonymous anyway...and single people (which of course will mean single women, both gay and straight, as few men make use of donor services) will NOT be permitted to use the services anymore. Heck, women probably won't want to use the services anymore since we won't be assured of our legal rights to our own children if the donor is NOT allowed to be anonymous...that protected ALL parties...

So it's just a question of time before that happens...

So as that option becomes more expensive then it is now, it will mean women with money will just go overseas and do these things in other countries, places like India and China, etc...

Poor and working class women won't be able to afford the services, but many career women will...if they so chose...

That is IF women even wish to go to the trouble anymore...after listening to a bunch of jackasses like yourself and others from places like Stand Your Ground or even child free feminists always running down mothers, they just might decide to agree with you all and say you know what, let's just forget the whole thing already, it's just too much damn trouble for too uncertain a return...

That will be your ultimate legacy to our future, of course, thanks to the selfishness of you and your associates...

Women deciding that you're right and it really doesn't pay for them to go to all the inconvenience, pain, disfigurement and sheer bloody mess of the whole thing anyway...

Okay...

Then what happens smart aleck...

Anonymous said...

"That will be your ultimate legacy to our future, of course, thanks to the selfishness of you and your associates..."

Yes. And remember, you caused that we become selfish. Because when we were selfless, you hit us with all your feminist rethoric. You didn't give us any reason to appreciate, be toughtful, or even like you. So, we just said "you're not worth the hassle".

Good luck. Next time you want somebody doing some sacrifice for you, remember doing it with courtesy.

NYMOM said...

"Yes. And remember, you caused that we become selfish. Because when we were selfless, you hit us with all your feminist rethoric. You didn't give us any reason to appreciate, be toughtful, or even like you. So, we just said "you're not worth the hassle"."


Really, when were men all selfless...

I must have missed that one...

Was it when you all decided to imitate Hugh Hefner and walk away from any responsibility individually to women or collectively to your society?

Or was it when you jumped for joy when one of you finally invented a birth control method that wouldn't interfere with mens' sensation and was wholly dependent upon women to use (the pill) and what a coincidence: it was just in time for the sexual revolution...

Boy were you guys lucky...

AND btw, nobody was HAPPIER then men when women started working to support themselves... you all loved it...as it took the burden off of men and shared it with women...

Of course, I bet you never expected that when you all decided to continue behaving like teenagers well into your 40s that women would just go ahead and have families without you...OR that women would go on to build real professional careers, not just take any crappy job anymore. After all we had to support our families ourselves when so many men walked away from your obligations in the 70s and early 80s...you left women no choice...

That's why the federal government had to finally step in to get your attention...by passing federal guidelines that made set child support mandatory...

Well, what did you think would happen?

That women would collapse w/o you all...What a surprise it must have been to wake up in the 80s and find you were all so easily replaceable...

Anonymous said...

"Really, when were men all selfless...

I must have missed that one..."

Perhaps when, in peril, men said "women and children first"? I could give you hundreds of examples, but this one is enough.

"Was it when you all decided to imitate Hugh Hefner and walk away from any responsibility individually to women or collectively to your society?"
No, it was when women walked away from any responsibility to men. I think they said: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

"That's why the federal government had to finally step in to get your attention...by passing federal guidelines that made set child support mandatory..."
For child support to exist, a child must exist, first. So, you are giving us one more reason to avoid women and marriage.

"That women would collapse w/o you all...What a surprise it must have been to wake up in the 80s and find you were all so easily replaceable..."
And about women collapsing and we being replaceable, in the other thread you said that we were to blame because so many women ended old and childless. I'd say they couldn't replace us, could they?

NYMOM said...

"For child support to exist, a child must exist, first. So, you are giving us one more reason to avoid women and marriage."

Well you've said many things, I'll reply to only one...so because men wish to avoid women and marriage does that mean women should avoid having children as well???

Since I see no reason for women to be limited to what many women would consider a half-life existence because men are essentially comfortable with their lives today...living alone, having your careers and friends, just casually hooking up with various woman whenever, that appears to be a pretty good life to most men.

So again, should WOMEN have to restrict ourselves to the same, so men assets can be endlessly protected??? Since every law at this point appears to be morphing into this as it's ultimate goal...

If men have decided NOT to play the game does that mean women shouldn't be allowed to play it either...

Anonymous said...

"If men have decided NOT to play the game does that mean women shouldn't be allowed to play it either..."
Just a small question... if men don't play... who will women play with? ;) I'm sure those old, childless women you mentioned would love to hear your answer.

NYMOM said...

"If men have decided NOT to play the game does that mean women shouldn't be allowed to play it either..."

Just a small question... if men don't play... who will women play with? ;) I'm sure those old, childless women you mentioned would love to hear your answer."


Well if women want children and they have incomes sufficient to support them why should they have all these hoops to jump through, most of them placed into the law through the instigation of men...

For instance, that decision throwing out the PA informal sperm donor agreement and making that donor pay child support...why couldn't those sorts of agreements be honored? Why must men continue (in every western country practically, England just the latest one) to try and limit single women's access to reproductive services if they wish to have children using donors?

Clearly this is part of men's ongoing attempts to regain control of women through giving men legal holds over womens' children...

Even this nonsense with single men having the exact same legal rights as a child's mother...this is ridiculous as well...single men contribute nothing to the well being of a child before birth and many not for years AFTER the birth either...YET the moment these prodigal fathers, as you call them, get a bug up their butt and decide they want to be a dad, even if it's years after the fact, they are legally allowed to do so...

The Marks case was a perfect example...

The man knew about the twins, he even came to the hospital with his wife to see them...YET he never even bothered having his name placed on their birth certificates...his lawyer later claimed he never bothered because he wasn't sure if the children were his as Marks had other boyfriends...Well guess what, it's just the opposite, he should have had the paternity tests done immediately to ENSURE his rights as a father, if he was so concerned...

Clearly he didn't care...

YET three years AFTER the fact, AFTER leaving them with their mother and seeing them
'whenever he was in town' suddenly he changes his mind and a full-custody trial is allowed to proceed???

What kind of crap is that???

This should NOT be allowed...single fathers should have their rights terminated just like other parents who abandon their children, 6 months to a year should be the timeline used for abandonment and subsequent termination...Do you think a woman could abandon her child for a year and come back and still have legal rights...I don't think so...why should single men be treated any better??? In an adoption a woman has anywhere from 3 days to a month (30 days) to change her mind and that's it...

Then women who get pregnant through mistakes and/or careless use of contraceptives would be the only legal parent of their children, it would probably prevent many abortions as well if women knew they could be the only legal parent and not have to worry about some monster legally abducting her child as soon as her back is turned or allowing her the freedom to decide if an adoption is best for her child w/o being second-guessed by somebody who has invested NOTHING in the entire process or in the child...

So these are the sorts of things I am talking about...which would give women more freedom to decide their own destinys vis-a-vis children, as just because men are happy with the current system and content with their lives w/o marriage or kids, why should women be chained to the same scenario through laws you've all set up...

These are all issues that men have gotten laws passed in to favor them...it certainly is no favor to a mother or child that a total stranger could be allowed on a whim really to abduct a child legally or otherwise...

Thus allowing more flexibility for women to set up informal sperm donor agreements and/or giving mothers ONLY full legal rights to all children born in never-married relationships would go a long way to women feeling comfortable having children again...

Anonymous said...

"Well if women want children and they have incomes sufficient to support them why should they have all these hoops to jump through, most of them placed into the law through the instigation of men..."

The day you can have a children without a man, then you can do what you want. Meanwhile, we call the shots, and if you want our sperm, work for it.

"Why must men continue (in every western country practically, England just the latest one) to try and limit single women's access to reproductive services if they wish to have children using donors?"

Donors? Dear, if it's so important for you, you should pay, don't you think? I have a better idea. You can have my sperm. Just pay me $100,000 for a teaspoon, and pay me $1,000/month for the rest of the child's life. After all, what's money, compared to the freedom of being a mother?

"why should women be chained to the same scenario through laws you've all set up..."

Because we own the sperm, that's why. You can cry and shout as high as you want, and this fact won't change.

NYMOM said...

Alright just play stupid now if you want.

I'm trying to discuss realistic scenarios and you're just playing stupid...

Anonymous said...

What's realist about compelling a man to give you sperm, in exchange of nothing but woe and responsibilities?

NYMOM said...

"What's realist about compelling a man to give you sperm, in exchange of nothing but woe and responsibilities?"

What woe, what responsibilities?

Just like sperm donor do now, you just donate and get money...you have no responsibilities????

Anonymous said...

"Just like sperm donor do now, you just donate and get money...you have no responsibilities????"

In your other post you mentioned the woman receiving money when pregnant. Where does this money comes from, if not from men's taxes?

And about money, well, what if we men decide to charge for it, not the 50 bucks it's now, but 500 or 5,000? Or perhaps that would be curtailing women's freedom?

Anyway, ok, have all the children you want, but you shouldn't receive one cent from the State, which is, after all, everybody else's money.

(I wonder how "free and independent" a woman is, when she has to depend on EVERYONE in her country supporting her)

NYMOM said...

"Anyway, ok, have all the children you want, but you shouldn't receive one cent from the State, which is, after all, everybody else's money.

(I wonder how "free and independent" a woman is, when she has to depend on EVERYONE in her country supporting her)."


Alright this will be my last post on this subject...as I have many other plans for my vacation other then this...do you realize this has been going on with anonymous posters since 11:30 this morning...it's 9:30 at night here now...and I have to pay attention to some other things too...

You are paying these mothers a benefit as they are having the children of our entire society...can you understand that???

These children benefit EVERYONE...

Okay...

It's better to get the child support for EVERY child from taxes as opposed to individuals, it's fairer...and takes money out of the whole parenting equation...thus if people really wish to be parents, they can be so...it's not about money anymore as everybody gets roughly the same fair benefit per child...no more welfare needed or fighting over child support...as $5,000 per child up to three children for a total of $15,000 tax free dollars is more then enough for the lifestyle of MOST children in the US...

Get it...

Alright good night now...

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes. Sorry if your logic abilities were overstressed by people's posts. That's the risk you take when you go public, that you will have to defend your viewpoints.

Anyway, good night. It's Friday night, so I have to go out and find a girl to get pregnant and then leave. Wish me luck!

NYMOM said...

"Oh, yes. Sorry if your logic abilities were overstressed by people's posts. That's the risk you take when you go public, that you will have to defend your viewpoints.

Anyway, good night. It's Friday night, so I have to go out and find a girl to get pregnant and then leave. Wish me luck! "

Yes, very funny...it's good to see how seriously you take these important issues...

Men often complain on other sites about their lack of reproductive choice and how they are FORCED to become fathers and pay child support just because they had a one-night stand, for instance, with a girl they hardly know...so I brainstorm a little and come up with what could be some feasible ideas regarding this issue and instead of seriously discussing it you make a joke out of it...

I don't think you are very serious about any of these issues after seeing your last comment...

For a relatively small sum of money, about $5,000 (up to $15,000 max probably covering three kids) we could probably solve that problem...maybe even END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT...by ensuring that a maternity allowance is available to single woman (or married even, I see no reason to discriminate against married women in this allowance) WHILE also ensuring that single men who have NO WISH to be FATHERS are not forced into paying child support...

YET with no ideas of your own, you can still laugh at mine...btw, I've seen no similar ideas from other men either or should I say I've seen no other ideas from MEN that address any concerns but their own...they don't address the mothers, children, or society's concern about children w/o adequate financial support to raise them with...

I've thrown out some discussion points that could address SOME of the underlying issues here (including single men having access to their children, as most mothers--once they realize their children won't suffer any financial loss from additional visitation--would probably NOT be so resistant to the idea of father's contact) and instead of getting some serious feedback regarding them, I get jokes...

Anonymous said...

"For a relatively small sum of money, about $5,000 (up to $15,000 max probably covering three kids) we could probably solve that problem...maybe even END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT..."

Ok, do your part to solve the problem, then. Go and find a women -any women will do- and give her $15,000. Don't forget to ask for a receipt. After all, if you're not part of the solution...

"I've seen no other ideas from MEN that address any concerns but their own..."

Let's see. You say we're selfish, brutish, abusers and inherently evil. Why then, I ask, do you expect we will spend our energy and money in solving YOUR problems, instead of ours? After all, isn't it what being brutish, selfish, abuser and evil is about?

NYMOM said...

"Let's see. You say we're selfish, brutish, abusers and inherently evil. Why then, I ask, do you expect we will spend our energy and money in solving YOUR problems, instead of ours? After all, isn't it what being brutish, selfish, abuser and evil is about?"

I never said you were all those things, you did...but remember one thing...this proposal will help men too...as you won't be legally responsible for children unless you are married to the mother or you BOTH agree to the responsibility as court will not be available for EITHER of you to challenge the other...

You left out that important point.

Anonymous said...

"this proposal will help men too...as you won't be legally responsible for children unless you are married to the mother or you BOTH agree to the responsibility as court will not be available for EITHER of you to challenge the other..."

Again, to avoid all such problems, men only need to avoid putting their semen in a woman. So, a rubber is a lot cheaper than $15,000. Heck, a whore is a lot cheaper than that.

NYMOM said...

"this proposal will help men too...as you won't be legally responsible for children unless you are married to the mother or you BOTH agree to the responsibility as court will not be available for EITHER of you to challenge the other..."

Again, to avoid all such problems, men only need to avoid putting their semen in a woman. So, a rubber is a lot cheaper than $15,000. Heck, a whore is a lot cheaper than that."

Yes, I've often thought the same thing myself. YET when all is said and done 30% of ALL children, ALL, are born out of never-married relationships so clearly it's too much TROUBLE for men to protect themselves, so you can look upon this proposal as a FAVOR society is trying to do for MEN...