Saturday, October 21, 2006

I Decided to Put Up This Old, but Interesting Post

All this week most of the blogosphere was discussing secondary characteristics adapted by women to assist them in surviving their historic and ongoing second-class citizenship status...except for the usual assorted outbreaks of threats to: sue each other, get another blogger fired, expose someone's real identity, beat up or kick another poster's ass if they made a comment someone didn't like again, etc.,

Just another ordinary week in cyberspace...

Oh well.

Anyway it made me return to this old post since it somehow appeared it could be relevant to that discussion; so I decided to put it up again in case any of the crew of misfits and trolls who frequently comment on this blog missed it the first time. Or more importantly were so busy aggravating me on this blog, that they missed last week's discussion on other blogs...

My motto has become if we can't blog with the ones we love, we must love the ones we're struck blogging with...

Thus the mission continues:

The Historic Psychic Scars that do Not Heal

Sometimes a moment of revelation can happen in the midst of a very ordinary event.

I was recently watching a very disturbing performance on C-SPAN the other day where a group of women sat transfixed before a man who spent the better part of an hour trying to convince them that mothers were not very good at raising our own children. Even though God, nature or just plain dumb evolutionary forces have designated us, women, the female of the species to bear, nurture and guide our young to maturity, this jackass thought he knew better then God, nature and evolution itself.

He brazenly stated that single fathers performed better then their female counterparts (single mothers) in 20 something different categories.* He blamed single mothers, as well as female teachers, for the fact that boys entered into gangs, claiming they were looking for the ‘male presence in the family’ they missed out on in their home life; very conveniently forgetting to mention the male presence who abandoned those families in the first place, thus making young men susceptible to the call of the wild, so to speak.

Additionally he let ‘white America’ get a free pass on this, as most of these problem homes are and will continue to be African-American, clearly impacted by the historic legacy of slavery in this society. Wherein single black women were encouraged to have one child after another, outside of the institution of marriage. Actually these women were rewarded for this behavior, as after they produced anywhere from 13 to 15 children for their white master to trade off for profit (remembering that this man was often the father of these children as well), this unfortunate mother was finally rewarded with her freedom.

This proved a true bargain with the devil and we live with this legacy today…and we MUST stop running away or trying to deny this responsibility or we will never solve the problems associated with it. By the way, anyone desiring more information on this phenomenon only need read the autobiography of Frederick Douglass...a real eye opener for those truly interested in the history of fathers in American society throughout that whole historic epoch.

Actually, historically North America was the only place in this hemisphere that micromanaged a people into being a self-reproducing slave population. Every other country, except our own, such as Brazil, the West Indies, etc., had to import slaves in order to have any, whereas the United States worked out a system that we could produce our own…and like I said, above, we live with this shameful legacy today as do the women who bear the psychic scars of this trauma and pass that along to their chilldren and their childrens' children.

There should be no minimizing of that crime and subsequent obligations we all bear because of it, none. It is our historic burden, our shame, an unpaid debt we still owe and we must bear it and deal with it, without blaming the victims who are still being crippled by that very ugly historic legacy.

We must accept this situation and it’s historic causes (us) and, most importantly, stop blaming the single black mother for this problem as young black men in gangs or in prison or doing drugs are not in trouble in this country because of their mothers.

AND I’m getting sick of listening to people trying to claim this.

Anyway, I digress…

This arrogant and foolish man then went so far as to mention that men appeared to be very willing to stay at home, while women went to work to support them, so men could raise the children, that they invested a whole two-second sperm donation in creating.

While mother who starts preparing for her children physically, psychologically and emotionally since about the age of 13 or so, (some say 7) then goes through 9 months of hell and high water (not to mention the hours of painful and bloody labor) to finally get them here in one piece, that she should be perfectly content to, well go join the marines, for instance, for a job to support her family…since there really didn’t appear to him to be much too different in being a marine or a mother…

Well at least it answers the question of why the US had to abandon most of its post-Vietnam era military ventures…and why some are beginning to question whether or not higher education, itself, is proving to be a huge waste of time and money for the US. As we appear to have raised and educated our ‘best and brightest’ to be some of the biggest jackasses in history.

Actually listening to this rant did not surprise me; as I’ve been listening to the male of our species pontificating on how much better a job they could do at raising children then mothers for the last 10 years or so now; but what did surprise me was that none of the women challenged him; they just sat their dumbly nodding in assent with faint smiles on some of their faces. There was more of an uproar at Harvard a few weeks ago, when someone dared to questions womens’ aptitude for science. Like, let’s face it, that is probably priority #853 for most women, as compared to these attempts to intellectually convince us that we aren’t good for our own children.

I almost hate to tell this jackass that mothers have been designated, since life itself first crawled out of the primal mist, as the most obvious, natural and best guardians for the young. This is the case in every species, including our own, and this designation was no accident. It’s because mother is the one who invest the most in bringing forth life, that she is the most natural guardian to see to it that that investment produces ‘fruit’. This has been the case and will remain the case long after this idiot falls into a hole somewhere and hopefully pulls it in after him; and if we are really lucky he’ll pull in the rest of these gender-neutralized social engineers who are perfectly willing to experiment with our kids in all kinds of weird family forms and strange custody arrangements.

A mothers’ children are her most precious possession, yet here we are ready to hand over, what women and women alone bring forth in pain and bloody suffering, to hand off into some sort of weird, gender-neutralized, social-engineering experiment, without a word of freakin protest.

I was disheartened and puzzled but then tonight once again, another revelation (and thank God it came just as I was ready to update my blog because otherwise, I would have been hard pressed to have an optimistic post tonight with all the death and destruction visited upon women by men this week; one bloody murder of us after another.)

Anyway, I’m watching C-SPAN again, listening to Tavis Smiley’s forum on the “State of Black America” and he introduces Thomas A. Parham, Ph.D who begins to expound on why African-Americans are in so much distress in spite of the 30 or 40 years since the civil rights movement and all the changes and assistance that is currently available for them. One of the issues he focuses on was psychic scarring. It exists, it run deep, it’s not visible. Additionally it can run so deep if you have enough traumatized generations born during the process, that you don’t even recognize it anymore. You think it’s normal and natural.

Thus you act and react to events, totally unaware that you are following a script that was written for you long before you, yourself, even existed. So no control is needed to keep you in your place, since you have already internalized the role that you’ve been assigned. It’s the matrix write large. Worse actually, as a matrix, if it existed, would be a physical ‘thing’ thus susceptible to being located and destroyed, whereas a historic psychic injury is not detectable, yet it can destroy your soul or, worse yet, cause you to destroy your soul since you don’t even recognize your essential self when it appears.

It struck me with a shock of recognition that Parham could have easily been talking about women, as what group has been living someone else’s script longer then we have.

Women, in their role as mothers, are frequently convinced by others that the mother/child bond is non-existence, so we have no more right to our children, then anyone else. Actually others should have more rights to them, as they are smarter and better then mothers, far more worthy to raise our children then we are. Additionally, we should be willing to participate in allowing men to experience being mothers, especially since they are so much better at doing everything else then us, why not this to? Or that our feeling towards are children are real, but irrational, primitive, not as significant as thing as a career in science. Definitely not as important as even a one-night stand with some jackoff who is only interested in women for how fast they can get you into the back seat of their cars, leaving you with a quick-drop sperm deposit before you are kicked to the curb again.

Actually everything in the world should be seen as more important to a mother then her children.

This fixation lately on women chasing after men for sex (as imprinted upon women via the media as in Sex in the City, Brittany Spears, every music video ever made, breast implants, etc.,) or the white wedding that must precede community-approved childbearing (that women spend much time chasing after causing tremendous soul-searing damage to ourselves in the process) keeps the focus on men, front and center in all womens’ lives.

It has caused women to expose ourselves to constant danger as in bringing dangerous men into our lives and our homes, rather then live alone.

It has caused women to allow men to disrespect us on both an individual and collective level, while we try everything possible to drag them to the altar for the traditional white wedding, that most men run from like the plague.

It has allowed women to subject ourselves to every sort of abuse from the one-night stand to posing half-naked everywhere we go, (more psychological rape of women which we enable to be done to us, we enable it). Regarding the one-night stand, let’s face it, this does nothing physically or emotionally for women. If we are being totally honest about it, women really use the one-night stand as a negotiating tool in a misguided attempt to build a deeper relationship with a man, who is actually only using women for sex in these one-night stands, nothing more.

It has allowed women to overlook the fact of abuse, both physical as well as emotional, in order to keep just about any relationship with a man no matter how destructive to us or our children.

It has caused women to use pregnancy as a negotiating tool in more desperate attempts to convince men to commit when men clearly want no part of us; thus causing our children untold hardship as they are court-ordered into relationships with men who would rather they do NOT even exist. Not to mention the worse case scenario if these ‘fathers’ decide to take custody in order to evade child support. Then our children, who should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possessions, are lost to us through the greed of men.

Sometimes lost forever as a mother losing custody might never see her child again. It the equivalent of sending a slave mothers’ child off to the deep south. It was the fear of most slave mothers as they knew it portended the end of their attempts to nurture and protect their children from outside forces…and spun their children out into the world and God only knew where they would wind up, God only knew…very similar to Bridget Marks’ twins or even Lisa Mason’s daughter…Once a mother loses custody of her children, anything can and frequently does happen to them…anything.

Thus, women must recognize this distortion of our priorities for the psychic scars that they are and work to heal ourselves.

Women must stop this trite madness of chasing men for either sex or marriages until we have healed ourselves to the point that we are able to negotiate a truly mutual relationship.

Women must focus on what should be front and center in our lives, our most precious possession, our children.

Women must stop listening to others who are either jealousy of the mother/child bond or are attempting to regain their position at the top of the hierarchy and have no problem with climbing unto the backs of our children to get there again.

Not to mention that they are quite content to continue inflicting even more psychic injury on women, as they continue this struggle to deprive us of our children.


I've posted some statistics below to dispute the 20 something talking points put forth by these gender-neutralized idiots in their quest to convince women that joining the marines would be more significant to mothers, then mothering our own children...

*Shaken Baby Syndrome Statistics

One shaken baby in four dies.

Some studies estimate that 15% of children's deaths are due to battering or shaking, and an additional 15% are possible cases of shaking.

Of the 37 children that died in Florida in 1995-96 13 died from a combination of Shaken Baby Syndrome/ Head Trauma.

Of the thousands that survive death, serious injury usually occurs.

"SBS" victims range in age from a few days to a few months old; the average is six months.

More than 60% of the victims of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male.

Almost 80% of the perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome are male

Information courtesy of: http://www.aboutshakenbaby.com/shaken_baby_statistics.htm


By the way these statistics hold true for New York as well.

I guess they forgot to include the 21st item on the list.

Here we have some other info overturning more lies put out about mothers.

Additionally the information indicates child abuse is increasing, probably as more men get custody of more children in their ongoing attempts to avoid paying child support, we will continue to see an increase.

This is why I frequently tell women never be afraid of honest statistics. As I am confident enough that thousands of years of evolution is not going to lie about the choice of women as the most obvious, natural and best guardian of the young in every species, including our own...

Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions
Author(s): National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information

Year Published: 2004

Introduction

Despite the efforts of the child protection system, child fatalities remain a serious problem.1 Although the untimely deaths of children due to illness and accidents have been closely monitored, deaths that result from physical assault or severe neglect can be more difficult to track. Intervention strategies targeted at resolving this problem face complex challenges.

Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this fact sheet are taken from Child Maltreatment 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).

How Many Children Die Each Year From Child Abuse and Neglect?

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,400 child fatalities in 2002. This translates to a rate of 1.98 children per 100,000 children in the general population. NCANDS defines "child fatality" as the death of a child caused by an injury resulting from abuse or neglect, or where abuse or neglect were contributing factors.

Many researchers and practitioners believe child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are underreported. States' definitions of key terms such as "child homicide," "abuse," and "neglect" vary (therefore, so do the numbers and types of child fatalities they report). In addition, some deaths officially labeled as accidents, child homicides, and/or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) might be attributed to child abuse or neglect if more comprehensive investigations were conducted or if there was more consensus in the coding of abuse on death certificates.

Recent studies in Colorado and North Carolina have estimated as many as 50 to 60 percent of deaths resulting from abuse or neglect are not recorded (Crume, DiGuiseppi, Byers, Sirotnak, Garrett, 2002; Herman-Giddens, Brown, Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, et al., 1999). These studies indicate that neglect is the most underrecorded form of fatal maltreatment.

Are Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities Increasing?

The rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities reported by NCANDS has increased slightly over the last several years from 1.84 per 100,000 children in 2000 to 1.96 in 2001 and 1.98 in 2002. However, experts do not agree whether this represents an actual increase in child abuse and neglect fatalities, or whether it may be attributed to improvements in reporting procedures. For example, statistics on approximately 20 percent of fatalities were from health departments and fatality review boards for 2002, compared to 11.4 percent for 2001, an indication of greater coordination of data collection among agencies.

A number of issues affecting the accuracy and consistency.


Who Are the Perpetrators?

No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2002, one or both parents were involved in 79 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. Of the other 21 percent of fatalities, 16 percent were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers, and 5 percent were unknown or missing. These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years.

There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Information Courtesy of: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm)

22 comments:

silverside said...

I've also seen evidence that not only are men more likely to commit shaken baby syndrome, most of the perpetrators are biological fathers. The solution according to the powers that be: Classes for daddies! Just what we need. More women forced into the workplace for a paycheck who are forced to rely on the father or some boyfriend for child care.

In addition, note that HHS finds higher rates of child abuse among single custodial fathers than mothers.

Anonymous said...

How's THIS for the modern "mother/child" bond? LMFAO!!!

NYMOM said...

Yes, it doesn't surprise me...even that last report I posted shows that in most deaths of children from physical abuse fathers are the culprits. Mothers usually are nailed as accessories or involved in deaths resulting from neglect...

Not that a child cares if they are killed from abuse or neglect, of course, but I thought it was important to point out to people that men are still the more aggressive and violent of the species, even when they are fathers.

NYMOM said...

Hi Eternal Bachelor alias anonymous said...

Thanks for visiting my blog.

NYMOM said...

Silverside:

Have you noted how many women bloggers left the blogosphere this week? Or cut back their postings due to various threats????

I've been wondering when you are going to start a blog. At least then I'll have someone to link to...

silverside said...

LOL!

Thanks, but I think I'm too technologically inept to do a blog. I do a weekly column for our local paper though. However, I mostly limit myself to more or less populist bread-and-butter economic stuff. Except for one column on the FR's in New York supporting that guy in in Nevada who stabbed his wife to death and shot the judge. Hmm, wonder what ever happened to him...

Meanwhile out here in the sticks, we recently learned of the sentence meted out to the only county DV murder last year. Get this: THE DA REFUSES TO SAY! I'm thinking he got off with the minimum--15 years. 15 years for doing in your wife with a hammer.

NYMOM said...

Probably another wonderful dad, like the one out in Nevada.

silverside said...

Fortunately, they had no children. Everyone has told me what a very fine individual she was. An assistant college professor who was very active in community affairs. She definitely bucked the stereotype of the co-dependent working class wife standing by her man.

NYMOM said...

Boy that is sad then and unexpected.

Why do you think she stayed with him then? As I have to think a guy like that was non-stop abusive during the relationship. Since I find it a little hard to believe you act like a perfectly normal human being until the day you kill your wife with a hammer...and that murder method shows a lot of anger. You must be filled with rage to kill someone like that, it's so brutal.

A lot of these guys that do this like Darren Mack and even this character in Pa who killed all those Amish girls have histories of abusing people for a while...

Like that guy in PA, they claim he wrote in his suicide note that he sexually abused two of his family members when he was 12 and they were 3 and 5 I think...and he started having dreams of doing it again...so instead of throwing himself off the nearest bridge he goes and murders about 4 or 5 other innocent kids.

Useless idiot.

I still say I don't believe that he was perfectly normal outwardly all these years. I think he showed signs that were ignored by his wife and other family members...just like that Darren Mack...enabled right up until the end by his mother and the legal establishment.

I have no use for these enablers as you already know. I consider them as bad if not worse then the ones they assist...

silverside said...

Even in that PA case, the wife kept insisting that she saw no sign.

I remember hearing the same thing from the family of the BTK killer.

And people who knew Ted Bundy (socially) always commented how pleasant he was.

Some people are apparently such accomplished psychopaths that they get away with this. Sure, we can miss the signs. Even the shrinks miss the signs. But some people just don't put off much in terms of signs.

BloggerNoggin said...

silverside said...
"I've also seen evidence that not only are men more likely to commit shaken baby syndrome, most of the perpetrators are biological fathers."

That's not true silver and you know it, 75 to 80 percent are either step fathers or boyfriends or even babysitters. This is where the the problem lies, fathers done it, and mothers have done, it but no one want to really pin the blame on a the person that's really not bilogical culprit, it's just something to discredit a mother or a father, that's all it is, and you know it.

NYMOM said...

"Some people just don't put off much in terms of signs."

I'm not sure I believe that.

Ted Bundy was alone, moving around a lot to different states. So I can well believe no one was close enough to him to see any signs.

But this guy in PA and the BTK one, I believe they showed signs but close family ignored it. Like BTK, some people are now saying he used to torture dogs with a taser when he was in charge of picking up strays...

Of course no one is going to admit these things now since they could get in trouble themselves if they did. Like even that John Couey, who murdered that kid in Florida. It turned out that he had been accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter or a niece I believe. AND upon his divorce it was privately agreed that he was to have no contact with his own children and if he agreed to this, there would be no charges pressed.

So there are signs but people, as long as they are protected, prefer to ignore them...and the result is these killers are given free rein to kill others. John Couey is a good example of this.

NYMOM said...

Sorry bloggernoggin you idiot. But it is true. I've seen the reports myself. You just like to avoid the truth like most of your ilk.

Biological fathers kills more children by physical abuse then mothers do. Mothers generally kill their children through neglect or get charged as an accessory under endangerment laws. This has been known for decades. I think I read back in the 70s that Dr. Vincent Fontana, who is in charge of the New York Foundling Home stated this many times...

Of course it makes no difference to a child if they are dead by neglect or abuse; they are still dead. But it's necessary to put this information out there so that men don't continue posting these statistical lies about mothers and people see that men are the most violent of the sexes, even when they are fathers.

silverside said...

Sorry, the 80% male figure for shaken baby perpetrators is correct. According to one Canadian study cited at www.keepkidshealthy.com, 50% of the perpetrators were biological fathers, 20% were stepfathers or boyfriends of the mother. Only 12% of the perpetrators were biological mothers. The rest were caretakers of various sorts.

Other studies I have seen have found similar results. However, it's hard to find as the numbers are frequently buried under "biological parents" and so forth.

BloggerNoggin said...

Anything of the sort in America?
I would have to see at least three, not one. If I can see or find three then I'll compile an average and I will be a believer in that, until then I don't buy it.

silverside said...

Yes, as a matter of fact.

www.dontshake.com

In 1994, the Child Abuse Prevention Center in Ogden, Utah conducted a research study to compile information about documented cases of shaken baby syndrome. The study found that 79% of the perpetrators in shaken baby syndrome are male, most of whom are the biological father of the victim (Child Abuse Prevention Center (CAPC), 1994).

More studies are listed at this website. Google shaken baby syndrome father to find more studies. The numbers will differ slightly as you will expect to find in any array of studies, but all find that men are the majority of perpetrators. Most of these men are fathers or boyfriends. The studies don't always clearly differentiate which. But when they do, biological fathers come out as the predominant perpetrators.

That's one reason father education is heavily targeted in prevention programs.

silverside said...

The citation for the Canadian study: Shaken baby syndrome in Canada: clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospital cases. W. James King et al. Canadian Medical Journal 2003 January 21; 168 (2) 155-159. Looks at cases from 11 pediatric tertiary care hospitals over a period of several years.

It's on the net.

NYMOM said...

Well it doesn't matter if there is anything of the sort in America as Canada is as American as apple pie.

Okay.

They are practically an extension of the US, although they refuse to admit it.

Plus the bigger issue is that we are not in a contest to see who abuses children more, men or women. As few parents, either men or women, abuse children. This blog really tries to address the issue of ordinary mothers, not abusive ones. Although I will, once in a while, post an article referencing abuse mostly to refute the anti-mothers propaganda floating around today.

The issue I try to focus this blog on is ordinary mothers...ordinary...not the extreme cases...

silverside said...

However, your column initially addressed fatherhood programs, which tend to work with young, unmarried fathers, usually of low income. Statistically, the group with the HIGHEST likelihood of physically abusing a child re shaken baby syndrome and the like. It's nice these "daddies" are being educated, but really, 17-year-old guys do not make good babysitters and are not ready for parenthood, no matter what book learning you try to stuff in their heads. And encouraging young girls and their parents to "hand over" helpless babies to these guys is a recipe for disaster.

Even in this county, I have heard in a "best" scenario of a teen father who simply plopped the kid and the car seat in the backseat while he went out drinking with his buddies. Not a thing anybody could do about it. This is the quality time with dad that we need? Not till he grows up, please. And the child would possibly benefit from a father's influence. There is no evidence that "intimate" contact with a father is really that important in infancy anyway. Consistent care from a caretaker is. Not indifference. Not being ignored while Daddy is cracking open cold ones with his buds. When Mom can't be with the child, s/he needs to be in the care of the loving (and presumably more mature) grandparents or a trusted aunt.


I know someone whose teenage daughter had a child. In order to avoid these kids of problems, the grandparents formally adopted the child. The daughter still functions as the mother. It keeps them from getting any financial support from her old boyfriend. But it also spares this darling little boy from having to hang out with a useless and irresponsible guy (an adult btw) who impregnated a teenage girl. (Why they let her date an adult male is another story...it was a disaster waiting to happen and I knew from the start, but they didn't see it. Anyway, at least they are acting responsibly now.)

byrdeye said...

He brazenly stated that single fathers performed better then their female counterparts (single mothers) in 20 something different categories.* He blamed single mothers, as well as female teachers, for the fact that boys entered into gangs, claiming they were looking for the ‘male presence in the family’ they missed out on in their home life; very conveniently forgetting to mention the male presence who abandoned those families in the first place, thus making young men susceptible to the call of the wild, so to speak.

Sounds like a brilliant man and a GREAT episode! I wholeheartedly agree!! Anyone got a link to a clip of this?

NYMOM said...

"...your column initially addressed fatherhood programs..."

Yes, I'm trying to point out to people that these programs are not what they appear and shouldn't be supported.

"...It's nice these daddies are being educated..."

I actually don't see that at all.

Basically these fatherhood programs appear to focus on the rights of fathers and incite these men to go to court and try to wrestle custody of these babies away from their mothers. Generally they juice these men up by citing statistical lies about how horrible single mothers are to their kids. As you and I both know most of these statistics are totally distorted so I try to discourage people from veering off into which parent is more abusive everytime we try to discuss these situations.

As most parents aren't abusive (male or female) so we need to establish that we are talking about normal people here for the most part...

"...the grandparents formallly adopted the child...it keeps them from getting any financial support from her old boyfriend..."

AND hopefully limits his contact with that poor kid as well...

I don't know why the courts think that some recreational sperm donor should be entitled to legal rights to children spawned from their careless sexcapades.

I'm sorry but I simply don't think that never married fathers of any age should have legal rights. AND to clarify I don't care if they are the male equivalent of Mary Poppins...mothers should still be first amongst equals in these situations (unless abuse or neglect is involved)...Men have and should still continue to get rights to children through marriage and those who wish to procreate outside of marriage take the risk they'll have no rights.

It's pretty simple to me.

I mean why should men bother marrying the mothers of these children if they can get the exact same legal rights (but none of the reponsibility pre-DNA testing of the child after birth) as the guys who do marry????

It doesn't make any sense...

I wouldn't marry someone either if I thought I had to be held responsible for their medical care, any of their credit card debit or other bills wracked up during a pregnancy. Especially if I know they won't be able to work soon due to the condition...

I would just wait (while the taxpayers or her family footed the bill for the whole thing) and then show up 5 minutes after the birth when the clock stops ticking for pregnancy-related expenses...

People who made the public policy decisions regarding this obviously weren't thinking too clearly...

NYMOM said...

"Anyone got a link to a clip of this..."

Well spend your own dime calling C-Span and I'm sure they'll be happy to supply you with the tape of the event.

I'm certainly not going out of my way to provide it for you.