"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. If insurance isn't required of
married parents, why should it be required of divorced paernts? However, I
do believe that parents who have a relationship with their children will
*want* to provide for them. That's the reason for the default 50/50
custody.


Have a lovely day.

Unless you don't want to.

Such a sweet little thing you are.