"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82...
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it
demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do,
but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their
responibilities in the same situation. Everything a
woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where
that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe
I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly
delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after
the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of
course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference
to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a
consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that
all post conception choices are the woman's and
therefore, in accordance with the precepts of
"Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that
follow from those choices should also be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and
she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say
that the consequence is pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading
his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many
options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word
"decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE,
the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of
a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man
from any responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his
child as well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by
her, and from those choices will spring consequences in
turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices
are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the
consequences that follow from HER choices is
fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that,
most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to
undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical
procedure, you think this absolves the man from any
responsibility, even though it's still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his
responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an
actual parent in the life of the child he helped
create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the
bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the
other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets
all the rights, and the parent who dumped their
responsibilities gets no rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad
having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time
frame. But the default 50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk
away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other
30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she
handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than
that, they pay for their own expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance,
and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health
insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one
is required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their
expense, it's the *other* parent's expense)

Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than
kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed
health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the
basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide
sometning he/she doesn't want to?

Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for
children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's
probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here.

I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any
more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon.

Married parents are not required to work.

Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and
in many cases are not required to provide medical attention.

Married parents are not required to successfully battle
alcoholism.

But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work,
and all the rest!

No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I
don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married
parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining
because you choose to do all those things and would probably like
more help from your children's father.

I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things
that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT
required of married parents.

My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life,
Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case.

Well, you've sure complained about it enough


And you don't find anything wrong with allowing one parent to not work
while threatening the other with jail for not providing cash to the
first parent? It is bad enough that the first parent was legally able to
hide the parentage of the child for so long but for the state to create
any arrearage whatever is a gross misjustice for both the child and the
second parent.
Phil #3

Nice try, though.