Can ANYONE see that WOMEN (& I am ONE) get all the rights and decisions regarding the birth of a baby?

Sometimes one-night stands are followed up with a positive pregnancy test. Both parties agreed to have unprotected sex. Both parties agreed that they didn't want kids. MOM, however has the choice to tell DAD to go away, have an abortion, give up for adoption, have the kid, tell DAD to pay (but still go away!) Does ANYONE understand what I'm saying? Does this seem right? Doesn't it seem like a double standard? I'm a woman and can see that other women in this world are capable of TRAPPING someone else, just because SHE'S A WOMAN?!? Some women know the system & HOW MANY TIMES WILL SHE BE ABLE TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT FROM FATHERS SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF EVER HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH OR ALLOWING THE FATHERS TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD? "Where's the baby's Daddy??" She made him go away, with the help of "the system" and is collecting his money!!

So when will things change? We may never know. 40 years ago it was worse though. My mother-in-law intentiontially was the town bike so she could force some boy to have to take care of her as well as her child (with the cinderella complex that he would fall madly in love with the mother of his child). So maybe things are improving somewhat, when states laws change to allow the father to say he doesn't want the child, it was a one nighter, he doesn't have to be financially responsible if he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think there's anything the government can actually do about that. Devious people will always be devious. The best advice I can give to guys out there, is not to fall for the tricks of scandalous women. Same for girls- some guys are just on the hunt, and you know them. Protect yourself with common sense.

In dealing with child support issues, the courts don't care at all what is fair for the father or the mother. They ONLY care about what is fair for the child. And if the child is born, they make sure the father or mother pays their share of child support no matter who made what decision. This is because the child is their only priority. They would rather screw over one party, to make sure the child is taken care of, then to be fair, and the child suffers.

I'm always careful not to end up with a kid I don't want.

I can understand what you are saying. So how would you propose to make men accountable other than financially. I also hate the blame on the women who had sex, men also made that decision to have sex without a condom. They have a brain too and can ask someone to use birth control.

Why don't you kiss, kiss this, and I don't mean on my rosy red lips. Women should not have abortions unless the father consents, this, I agree with, however as a single mother of 3, I don't feel that the system holds men responsible enough, my babies father is $3000. 00 behind on child support, they sent off an order to withhold his taxes this year, and he got a rapid refund and got it back anyhow, to me, he should go to jail, he's worthless.

I agree with what you're saying but if the guys are willing to have one night stands and not use protection then...

these women have no morals and no respect for them self or others..... guys they are sleeping with on a 1 night stand arent much better... what ever happened to loving someone and then making love.. so many just having sex u would think STD`s would scare ppl enough much less entrapment

Take what you can get. Consider a balance for the fact that us men are paid more money than women for doing the same job.

I agree that women can trap men using sex. Sometimes they prick little holes in condoms, even.

That said, I try not to be a cynical person.

Bottom line it's unfair to the unborn child and the tax payers. Those are the only people who didn't have anything to say or do with the horizontal twist, yet it's those people who end up effected when it comes to one-night stands etc.
If a person has sex they can get pregnant bottom line. They should thank the heaven it's a baby which was the result not HIV, STD, etc.
It take two to make a baby.
Legally she can't stop the father from having a relationship with the child. Unless there are issues, in those cases it's court supervised visitation.

First of all, women aren't the only ones empowered to "know the system". Nothing prevents men from getting acquainted with "the system".

As for the concern that women "trap" men for the sake of child support, how much money do you honestly believe these women make? Statistically, most child support awards do not cover even half of the costs of actually raising that child, to say nothing of leaving a surplus for the mother to travel the world in a private jet. The average child support award in my state is less than 1/3 of what I pay my nanny to babysit while I work -- less than 1/3 of the nanny's wage, without counting the cost of food, housing, clothing, medical bills, toys, books, etc.

Yes, women have more choices when it comes to pregnancy. However, women, and only women suffer the many disabilities and disadvantages that come with pregnancy. Contrary to popular belief, women can be denied jobs and in many cases even fired for being expectant mothers -- but expectant fathers cannot. Women's bodies are used to carry the baby to term, with multiple and mostly unpleasant (and often downright harmful) consequences -- men's bodies, barring the rare case of "sympathetic pregnancy", suffer no such consequences.

It is also not true that the mom can tell the dad to "pay, but go away". Men do have visitation rights -- but it is the financial participation in the raising of the child that cements those rights.

And please don't tell us it's only the women who ever "trap" their partners. Men do their fair share of "trapping" -- starting with using their offspring as a means to control the mother.

Finally, what functional alternatives are you proposing? It's nice when the partners can agree on what to do with the pregnancy and how to raise their children, but what if they cannot? What should be done then? Should the man have the last word over the pregnancy and force a woman either to carry to term or to have an abortion at his pleasure? Mind you, if your solution is a so-called "financial abortion", do share your ideas as to how you propose to make it as permanent as a physical abortion would be -- to prevent any and all future contact between the father and child, regardless of the child's age and desire. After all, if a woman aborts, she can't unabort the fetus 20 years later; but with a "financial abortion", I bet you many men would "unabort" as soon as their children reached majority.

Understand this: child support isn't payment for a long-term relationship with a woman, which is why it extends to one-night stands. It's payment towards the raising of a child -- keeping that child clothed, fed, housed, and otherwise cared for. In the absence of child support, that burden will fall on the shoulders of taxpayers, who got even less out of the whole deal than the poor, poor father -- at least he got laid, the taxpayers didn't even get that.

Neither is child support a payment for a relationship with the child. You seem to view a child as if it were a car or a household appliance -- so why should the man pay unless he has the use? The problem is, a child is not a car or an appliance that you can "use" or "not use" -- a child is a human being, and if you've made one, then access shouldn't be a prerequisite to your consern for his welfare. Many of the people whose ideas you are parroting cry about children's welfare but seem perfectly willing to let their flesh and blood starve to death if they don't get visitation -- which exposes the whole brouhaha over "children's rights" as a red herring.