Normally I agree with JG on a lot of things, she and I being fellow diehard Red Sox fans. However, jerseygirl, you are flat dead wrong on this issue. Don't give me some holier than thou "i have a vagina!" mirror-squatting Bettie Friedan shit. Equal rights does mean equal responsibilities: this is a solvable problem, and if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy- even if the guy wanted to be a father, a scenario not often talked about- then she also must be responsibility for ensuring the well-being of that child if she decides to have the child and raise it, against the wishes of the biological father. If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. Seriously- you're whole opinion on this is fucked the hell up. If I came here and posted "Women choose to have sex, so if the sluts get pregnant they should live with the consequences, harlots of the old testament that they are. No legal abortion should allowed!", I can assure you your tampax would shoot across the room in rage and anger- because that idea that people are little more than biological factories to be controlled by the state is offensive and medieval for our more enlightened times. I fail to see, JG, how your "You have sex, you must pay the consequences for ever" one-sided bullshit is any different than some fundy pundit or Limbaugh- wannabe ranting about "black inner-city welfare moms squirting out kids cause they can't keep their bon-bon eating, spandex wearing, jerry springer wathing legs shut!". It isn't, they both are about grotesque simplification of our choices in life, and a puritanical desire to control other people's bodies and lives based on your "moral judgments" of how they made bad choices. If you as a woman have a biological quirk that makes you the only gender to be able to bear kids, then yeah- you get special rights on terminating that pregnancy, but also special responsibilities. Most of us realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand by the time we're out of high school, but I guess that's not the case with you, jerseygirl. Oh, but go ahead and call me a misogynist. However, I'm pro-choice and pro-responsibility, and deeply resent the stereotypical white male conservative legislator trying to write laws to govern your womb or your body. Whereas you are the one who thinks men should be baby-producing, wallet-opening machines. Maybe we need a child-support sequel to "The Handmaiden's Tale" to get through to you, JG?
jerseygirl, in the words of the immortal Oprah, "You go girl!"
If the biological father consents to the pregnancy, and/or is in the marriage, he then can't later opt out- once he's agreed to the pregnancy, he's a dad now and forever, and child support as well as some custody arrangement should be the case. This approach makes sense, it is fair, and idiotic cries of "misogyny" make your perspective no more false than it was before. huh? hal, i read your post three times and couldn't find a point to it. you're against child support, or you're like CC and are pro a man's right to an abortion? both? i know you want to holler and yell like everyone else, but succinct and to the point works just as well.
You've really got me painted wrong as some "Let's all read the Red Tent and get in touch with our va-ja-jays!" earth momma mirror-squatting vaginaologist who is trying to manipulate and trick the male species by using babies as a line of instant credit. Clearly, that's how I came across to you, so I'll try to understand how it worked you into a venomous, judgemental lather.
Now, regarding this case: we really don't know the facts behind the pregnancy. The girl was apparently conceived in 1989/90, so he wasn't making millions although I imagine the fact that he was a regular starting pitcher even in 1989, albeit at the league minimum rate, plus any contract and signing bonus he had, suggests he was a likely candidate to be a millionaire. However, I doubt this was a gold-digging case at the time: it doesn't sound like she was a stripper milking some dumb-as-dirt meathead out of his future earnings, but a professional in her own right- and the details of this child support is surprisingly low-level in terms of monthly payments for Randy Johnson; I'd be more appreciative if I were him that you weren't bilked out of $50,000 a month instead. It's also not entirely clear whether it was a mutual decision to have them be separated and her raise the child, with some child support, or if he insisted on being out of the child's life against her protests, but the fact remains that it sounds like this was the case from the beginning. $5k a month from 9-16 is a tidy sum (pre-tax that's almost half a million dollars over about 8 years) to supplement any single mom's income, especially when it's guaranteed to be paid out for the full length. It really is like winning one of the lower-level lotteries. Child support, even from a millionaire, shouldn't mean "never have to work again, live in the lap of luxury", and I think kudos to the mom for not treating it like that for the most part. The mom seems surprisingly ungreedy, given that the child support wasn't started until the daughter was 9, by which point he was a multi-multi-millionaire from the Mariners, an All-Star and Cy Young winner, and had just signed a $53m contract with Arizona... she could have asked for and possibly gotten Bonds' level money in paternity/alimony. So for that reason, I think Johnson is an ass for pitching a fit about this- it's not worth the time, energy, publicity, or lawyer's fees. Yes, in principle I think he shouldn't have to pay anything unless he was in support of the child at first, and only later decided he didn't want to be a dad... and I believe that it's silly to say he owes more just because he can pay more. It reduces child support to nothing more than a lotto ticket. What, if Randy Johnson wasn't the star pitcher he is, should the Lottery commission of the state of Washington buy a car for the daughter? That said, in practice I think Johnson is an ass for suing her, and the wise course would have been to meet and say "Look, I'm fine
