View Single Post
  #294  
Old October 12th 06, 11:08 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
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


About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his
daughter. You are wrong.


And, once again, you misrepresent my words.

You have complained that your stepdaughter's mother doesn't work.
You have complained that she is an alcoholic.
You have complained that her alcoholism is recognized by the medical
community as a disability, and, as such, entitles her to disability
benefits.

You have complained about these things mightly, and at great length.

I have complained about the system that tried to
stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for
a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages
were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that
I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've
certainly complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one
penny of her own children's support. But I've never complained about his
supporting his own daughter. Wrong again, Moon.


I never stated that your complaints were about your husband supporting his
own daughter. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.

Big surprise there.