Topic : 02/23 Exes From Hell

Interesting you say that you're retired while maintaining three businesses, yet not once did you say that you're also a paid employee, as Director of Public Housing... I wonder if the board would question your ability to be fully capable to completely help women if they were to read your opinions in these posts.  That's almost the same as my ex-mother-in-law who, amongst other political arenas, is on the board to prevent domestic abuse at the same time crying out to a judge in writing and in public that her son was never abusive towards his family while witnessing his admittance in court. during an OFP order.  Scary who's trying to change legislation for the "benefit" of the public as a whole..
 

If as you say it's the "lie" that sparked the inequality, then why is it no where in writing, especially in the federal complaint?  In the statement of facts, it actually says that she was using birth control.  Where does it say that she lied to him?  The courts of all places would need to hear the allegations in order to respond to that specific issue.  Rather it discusses his lack of rights AFTER conception.  From what I'm reading with this complaint, he's requesting the right to choose to not be a parent (abortion or choice of immediate termination of parental rights if the mother opts to keep the child) once conception occurs, just like women.  No where does it say that he was lied to and that's why he didn't wear a condom, etc. etc. etc.  I've also learned never to base an opinion based on what the media says.  What they say is an interpretation of what they've heard or read.  Even if he was interviewed and it came out of his mouth that he felt he was lied to, it's not brought up as an issue in front of the court.  What was submitted to the court is the issues the court will need to address. 

Once again, slowly this time, a moral wrong does not necessarily rise to the level of a legal wrong. If it did, there would be many, many more lawsuits for all sorts of broken love promises (to get married, to live with her mother, to always live in one particular place, etc., etc., ad nausem).  

  

JB's paramour, mother of his child, lied. JB, on the other hand, could have availed himself of protection but chose not to based on her lie. That decision to not protect himself was his and his alone, unless she forced him or knocked him out and forcibly withdrew his sperm from his body. But condoms too can fail. The bottom line is that all sex carries the inherent and foreseeable risk of pregnancy. The fact that one or both parties have done everything humanly possible to reduce the risk, or that one party has been a liar, cannot get away from the inescapable and foreseeable risk.  

  

And telling a guy that he should have worn a condom is not analogous to telling a woman that she should have kept her legs closed. The former permits sexual expression while the latter would prohibit it. And it's basic biology here guys. No sperm, no pregnancy.  

  

Men have total control over the initiation of pregnancy. Now they want the government to give legal authority to control the outcome of pregnancy. It is bad enough that so many women have abortions because their male partner insists on it, or threatens to dump them and the child if she proceeds with the pregnancy. Now there are some men (led by the same lawyers that JB castigates) who are trying to abdicate their responsibilities that have resulted from the foreseeable results of their encounters. 

  

As if it isn't tragic enough that these same so-called men are bailing out on their own children, on fatherhood. Welcome to the brave new world of the anti-father (except when he decides). 

  

JB suggests putting some form of birth control in the water. Yes, mandatory medication of the entire populace. Draconian, but that's one way to defeat these women who go and get themselves pregnant. You know who those women are: the ones who plot and scheme to steal the sperm of a cash-earning male. Yes, women are a veritable Statue of Maternity, calling out to all those little sperm to come hither: 

  

Give me your active, your motile,
Your pent-up life force yearning to swim free,
Unfettered by latex and teeming to the female source,
Send these, the homeless sperm, racing boys to me,
I lift my hat to your golden coin! 

  

Perhaps a drug should be developed to prevent male fertility. Then, we could have a law that all males should be medicated at puberty to prevent their own fertility. In order to ensure responsible parenthood, males would be required to obtain a license to ejaculate (no learner's permits allowed). We could actually have a whole government agency to oversee this licensing and medication. This would create more jobs, hopefully for women so that they could find something else to do with their time other than contemplate ways to paternally trap hapless, unsheathed men. 

  

Constantly pointing a blaming finger at the woman continues the original pattern of irresponsibility and avoidance of personal responsibility for protection and potential outcome. No male should fail to protect himself from unintended pregnancies and STDs. Furthermore, even with multiple layers of birth control, pregnancies can and do occur. Just ask the couple that has tried unsuccessfully for years to get pregnant, the woman who has had multiple surgeries and IVF procedures. They decide to adopt and, in some cases, woman becomes pregnant.  

  

Here's a newsflash to the JBs of the world: There is a foreseeable risk of pregnancy collateral to having sex. You assumed that risk when you had sex, protected or not. Once that pregnancy occurs, the fetal life is intertwined with the mother's body and you no longer have any say over the fetus' journey to birth or its termination in utero. And once that fetus, or "collection of cells" (terminology compliments of Mel Feit, lawyer and founder of the Natl. Center for Men's Rights) is born, the rights of that child to support from its biological parents, those who caused its conception, supercede thes individual rights of the would-be nonparents. 

  

And please, JB, spare us all the ridiculous misuse of supposed statistics. This confusion of cause with effect is not only illogical but a hysterical, emotional response to something that you can't control.  

 

 

Since you seem to have all of the answers,  let me ask you.  How does one support a teen-age son on $125 per month?    

 

 

  

"Give me your active, your motile,
Your pent-up life force yearning to swim free,
Unfettered by latex and teeming to the female source,
Send these, the homeless sperm, racing boys to me,
I lift my hat to your golden coin! "

You made me laugh!  It would be interesting, seeing how he's the Director of Public Housing for his area, if he has also noticed all the low-income single mothers who've had children by men who were either not working or low income themselves at the time of conception and/or birth.  How do they fit into his theory?  That can easily be researched by local reports since they'd have to report all household members and income to become eligible for public housing.

and show up for work

it is a volunteer position.. I dont need to support the decisions people make to decide to direct the resources of our public housing commission..

absolutely.. a male form of fertility prevention would be prefect.. absolutely perfect.. then she could lie..and he could say "no problem" but stay on his pill.. 

AND he could say.. No problem honey.. I am on the pill.. and when she ends up pregnant because HE was lying.. we would see a totally different debate.... 

when it starts happening to women.. it wont be trivial... 

btw moral wrongs.. are moral wrongs.. and you are a lawyer who cheerleads for the moral wrong.. and chase a cheque ... it is pathetic... you see it as a moral wrong.. but the law degree prevents you from calling wrong.. wrong..you call it morally wrong but can't quite tear yourself away from the possibility of getting a pay day..for your "morally wrong" client.. it is morally wrong..say it a few times to your self...morally wrong..morally wrong.....how does it feel to be on the morally wrong team?? 

yep... I watched the interview on CNN... Soledad obrien... "she said she was infertile"....well... that was clearly not true.. so we need to find the doctor who called her infertile and sue him.. there is precident here.. but.. if she was lying... there will be no doctor..... 

what happened.. and what the lawyers choose to say..may be two different things...shocker... 

One can hardly begin to count the number of women who "ended up pregnant because he was lying." An entire book could be written of the lies men use to get sex and/or to convince women of all the reasons that she can't get pregnant. Few have ever cared that women "ended up pregnant" no matter what the reason. Typically, the language that was used was "she went and got herself pregnant." Women have been dealing with these lies since the beginning of time. Now, in our lifetimes, women have the right to control the course of pregnancy, a right that they heretofore did not have. Women are also able to engage in sexual relationships with reduced risk of pregnancy. But there is not a woman alive who thinks that the risk is reduced to zero unless she has (1) no sex, (2) no uterus, or (3) is dead. Even menopause is not a sure thing.  

  

Sexual activity is in the risk zone. You just don't like it that you are being compelled to support your own child. 

  

I do not cheerlead for the moral wrong nor chase a check. I simply distinguish between a wrong that has legal recourse and a moral wrong that exists within the private sphere. For example, some people consider homosexual acts to be a moral wrong that the law should prohibit and punish. Others consider such acts to be moral wrongs but not legal wrongs such that these acts are subject to governmental interference or sanctions.  

  

Some people consider it a moral wrong to fail to love and nurture their children. But this is not a legal wrong for Matt Dubay. The law considers financial support of one's children to be a legal right for the child. Others, like Matt Dubay and his ilk, feel that it is not a moral wrong to fail to love and nurture their child, not a moral wrong to fail to financially support their child, and that it is a legal wrong for them to be so compelled. 

  

Others, like JB feel that the moral wrong of an alleged lie about using birth control overrides all other moral and legal imperatives. Some, like JB feel that their belief in the alleged lie about using birth control was sufficiently reasonable such that they could decline all other self-help preventive measures. Some, like JB, feel that their reliance on the alleged lie about using birth control negates the risk that any sexual encounter protected or unprotected, lied about or truthful, can lead to conception. 

  

Perhaps your personal anguish and resentment over your daughter's conception, resultant birth, and government-mandated support prohibits you from analytically dissecting these issues. To that I can only suggest that you educate yourself on the moral wrongs doctrine and how (and why) moral wrongs are distinguishable from legal wrongs. I also urge you to grow up. 

  

There is no money in this for me. You have no idea what check I may be chasing. But then again, the devil is in the details and we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of loose cannons. 

  

The only ones prostrating themselves on the pulpit of the almighty dollar are the lawyers who have filed these ridiculous lawsuits (and Matt for his future book sales). Matt's lawyer knows he stands to gain tons of publicity beyond the wildest scope of his advertising budget. His fees are guaranteed compliments of the Natl. Center for would-be Men. Lauren Wells will have to pay her own attorney fees unless the court stands with precedent and orders Matt Dubay to pay her fees and costs. Let's see if the Natl. Center for we-are-not-Boy-Scouts will suddenly drop the ball on Matt then.  

  

Pity all these legal fees can't be put into a college fund for Matt and Lauren's daughter. Pity the lawyers did not counsel Matt about the obligations that he has to his child. Pity no one has stated the obvious to Matt which is: "Hey buddy, you have a child, like it or not. Now be a man and for this little girl's sake, be a dad." Instead, we have this childish drivel from our coached Plaintiff yapping on about how he shouldn't be a part of this child's life. Of course, he already has the right to not be a part of his baby's life. Now he just wants the courts to let him bail out on his fair share of her financial support. What a complete and utter loser.  

  

You don't know the first thing about moral wrongs. It is impossible to understand morality when you exist in a vacuum with all of the world swirling about yourself.