Aqva, to claim that everyone becomes intellectually "stunted" because
fathers have to pay a share for their children, is certainly
pushing the limits of credibility!

David, your worldview to me, seems to be a very narrow focussed,
biblical one. I challenge you to think beyond that for once.

Anthropology has done alot of study in the field of human relationships
and IMHO the findings are quite interesting.

Helen Fisher, an anthropologist of some repute, summed up some
of these findings in her book "Anatomy of Love- a Natural History
of Mating, Marriage and Why we Stray".

Life long marriage seems to be a relatively recent phenomena in
human history, more tied up with agriculture and the advent of the
plough, then anything else. Go back 500 grandmothers, not long in
genetic terms, our ancestors still lived in caves and hunted for
a living. Through agriculture, via marriage, women then became
basically mens possessions, but things were quite diefferent
before that time.

Polygamy is in fact more common then monogamy, if you look at the many
cultures on earth. Serial monogomy happened, but in terms of 7 years,
ie. long enough to raise a child, not lifelong monogamy.

Sexual straying has always been around, because it actually has some
genetic benefits. So it will always continue to be around.

So there is nothing "magical" going on, similar trends are evident
in various species, we are just yet another of them.

Anyhow, its up to you, if you want to stay biblical and closed minded
or open your mind to inform yourself beyond that limited worldview.
All I can do is mention it to you.

Who's paying for that womans right.
Currently, 20-30% of all DNA paternity tests conducted in Australia are coming back negative.

http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p12

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/08/1070732140728.html

In Canada research has shown 1 in 6 children are victims of identity and paternal fraud.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm

In the United States the numbers are as high as 33%.

In Britain 1 in every 25 live births are found fraudulently represented by the woman.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Telegraph_1_in_25_men_victims_paternity_fraud_11AUG05.htm

Yes. Lets not look too closely at our feminist politics and the CSA. The main thing is that there is a man paying out a minimum of 18% of his gross earning per child so that single woman can exercise her 'rights'.
Any decent person would shed a tear for the hard working prostitute. At least her intentions are up front and honest.

Dear All,

With this outbreak of congenial expressions of regard for one another, I think the time may have come for me to bow out. I am so appreciative that we could stay the course together and debate without rancour. I feel I have benefited from your contributions, especially Celivia, but also Yabby. Thank you.

I promise to be back. I have been asked to write an article around the issue of legislating morality(?) for my denominational magazine, Nov edition. I'm sure Graham Young will consider posting it on Online Opinion.

So I need to put my thinking cap on, it is an issue that has lain close to the surface of this debate.

Cheers for now, God bless

David

Don,
Thank you, and well said.

Aqva,
Perhaps it’s you’d like to start your own general discussion on this topic so that you’ll have a wider range of people to debate this with rather than the ones who are obviously more interested in debating the right of the ‘unborn child’ or women’s rights than about fathers’ wallets.

Yes, women stray; so do men. I’m sure that there are many family men who have fertilised other women’s eggs.
I have said all I wanted to say in this discussion and won’t spend more posts on this issue here because I can see no valid reason why women should have to carry all the responsibilities and men should have no responsibility at all for cpmtraception; I won’t change my mind about this, except for special, individual cases perhaps, as I have said.
There is plenty of space on OLO to discuss this elsewhere and with others.

Yabby that book sounds like an interesting read. I will put it on my to-read list along with the title David recommended.
I also saw an article about studies that found women are more likely to cheat during ovulation, the most fertile part of their cycle, but only when their mate was less sexually attractive than ‘the other man’. Women seem to have evolved this way.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1469078
But today cheating still remains a choice for either partner.

David,
I lacked the space before to mention that you’re right that adoption should not be overlooked as one of the options that pregnant woman can take into consideration.
I think though, that the adoption process should be made a smoother one because right now it’s a rather lengthy and rather difficult process and the rules are so strict that it can put applicants off.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss this and especially for taking part in the debate yourself; it usually doesn't happen that the author of an article participates in the debate.

I look forward to reading your next article, which should be an interesting read.

Cel, I see you have now taken to referring to the foetus as 'an unborn child with rights' rather than your previous position of a foetus as 'a clump of cells with no rights'. Though I do note that it's still womans rights and mens wallets, not mens and womens rights equally under law. The battle for an egalitarian society continues. One hopefully where both men and women have a say in becoming parents and the laws represent both men and women equally and where no laws support the exploitation of men as wallets. I'd add here, or woman as wombs but, we have no such laws and a woman has many many choices and is not compelled to be a single mother. I see no valid reason why a woman should choose to raise a child knowingly dependent on the future income of an non existent father and on the State for the next 20 years. To cling feverishly to 'its her right as a woman' does not mitigate the misery inherent in that choice nor make it the right choice for any young woman with their future ahead of them, nor morally or ethically right to drag an innocent child into that desperate existence. Womans empowerment (if that's the real reason)needs to become more the exercise of good judgment or common sense, and practical. Your overwhelmed, heady exercise of raw power is proving dysfunctional and entirely selfish and the child has become a tool and a victim in that exercise of power before and/or after it is born.

Aqva,
‘Don’t torture yourself, that’s my job.’ Noticed the quotation marks? That means that Morticia Adams said that, I was quoting her. Perhaps I should’ve used double quotation marks.
For the same reason, I put the term ‘unborn child’ in quotes- to make clear that I was using the term that David’s side rather than my own, which would be embryo or foetus.
Anyway, the attempt to make this clear obviously failed, giving you new ammunition.

Anyway, you missed your next shot because I can dive. I told you that I’m not going to continue debating your excuses for dodging fathers’ responsibilities, so I won’t.

The biological father DOES exist: who do you suggest fertilised the woman’s egg- the invisible man?

Anyway, I think I'll call this discussion to an end.
Thanks, all!