View Single Post
  #117  
Old May 17th 08, 05:24 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

================================

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other

parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to
me.


What a bunch of crap!


What's crap is FORCING a man into responsibility for a choice that was
impossible for him to make!


I chose to become the father of my children. My choice was by free will and
not some judicial authority making me become a father by fiat.


If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial

rights
and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order

are
only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their

free
will to be a parent.


Fine, then YOU stand up against their guns.


Your way doesn't work. Period. But my way allows me to parent as I define
the role of parenting. I guess that is why I am not bitter about being a
parent.




But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to

care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into

the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does

not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!


I say this right is more than voluntary.


I was referring to responsibility, not rights.


So let's cut to the chase. Is the obligation to support your children a
right or a responsibility in your eyes? I say it is both and marital status
or circumstances have nothing to do with the basic parental obligation.


Fathers have every right to reach
out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what

any
court says.


How do you determine which laws one has the right to violate?


A person can choose to violate any law. I choose top violate no laws.


The children get it in the long run. And having parental
rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the

rights,
you accept the responsibilities.


Which is PRECISELY the problem! The so-called "family" court enforces
reponsibility while at the same time DENYING the accompanying rights.
Additionally, they heap such responsibility upon those who are incapable
of
making the choice that merits the responsibility in the first place. Get
it?


Continuing to equate every family law issues to a court's decision is
insane. Half of all marriages remain intact and the family courts never
have a say in the parental rights and responsibilities of those children or
what those parents do.