If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:jl8Tj.2198$5_1.2073@trndny05... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. ==== I'm sensing issues--Did your father abandon you? It would be interesting to know why he is so h^ll bent on having the right to walk away from any child at any time with no ongoing responsibility to that child. Have you considered Chris is a girl who was influenced by a radical feminist mother into rejecting all men as a pre-emptive strike to avoid emotional dependency on any male? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:jl8Tj.2198$5_1.2073@trndny05... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. ==== I'm sensing issues--Did your father abandon you? It would be interesting to know why he is so h^ll bent on having the right to walk away from any child at any time with no ongoing responsibility to that child. Have you considered Chris is a girl who was influenced by a radical feminist mother into rejecting all men as a pre-emptive strike to avoid emotional dependency on any male? chuckle Now there's a thought. That one had not occurred to me. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:jl8Tj.2198$5_1.2073@trndny05... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. ==== I'm sensing issues--Did your father abandon you? It would be interesting to know why he is so h^ll bent on having the right to walk away from any child at any time with no ongoing responsibility to that child. Have you considered Chris is a girl who was influenced by a radical feminist mother into rejecting all men as a pre-emptive strike to avoid emotional dependency on any male? chuckle Now there's a thought. That one had not occurred to me. And the reason men should be allowed to walk away from children they fathered is to allow the new generation of femwits to freely express their independence from the male dominated social presumptions about how society values the father role. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is atrocious behavior to me. That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but fiscal matters, he does have a point. Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the situation (choice). But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary can abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other fathers that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents. I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my thoughts.... I'll just say this: A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves and a sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a great probability that both will get an even-sized slice. Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a child will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in the cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also decide which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this right to men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently because of their sex. I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried couples--I think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and expect the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be remedied. But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS! How nice. The two of them choosing to keep and raise those children is a choice that both of them made. The mother cannot take a 15 year old to a safe haven and walk away with no questions asked, as she can when the child is just a few days old. Neither should the father be able to make that choice. It went from *sole choice* to *their choice* when they chose to raise the child together. What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him choosing to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the dialogue. And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I twisted ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. "That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only tapdancing being done is by YOU. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give birth. How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. Because? A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF with his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!". THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist. I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess what, I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course, I have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in and of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently you disagree. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him choosing to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the dialogue. And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I twisted ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. "That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only tapdancing being done is by YOU. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give birth. =========================== No, Chris. That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after* the safe haven option. =================================== How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. Because? A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF with his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!". ======================== And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it so men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their children will **not** fix that problem. ======================== THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist. I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess what, I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course, I have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in and of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently you disagree. =================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him choosing to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the dialogue. And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I twisted ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. "That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only tapdancing being done is by YOU. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give birth. =========================== No, Chris. Yes it is. That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after* the safe haven option. Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it? =================================== How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. Because? A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF with his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!". ======================== And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it so men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their children will **not** fix that problem. ======================== Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off. THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist. I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess what, I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course, I have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in and of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently you disagree. =================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. [Hint: My body, my choice, MY responsibility.] |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him choosing to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the dialogue. And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I twisted ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. "That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only tapdancing being done is by YOU. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give birth. =========================== No, Chris. Yes it is. That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after* the safe haven option. Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it? Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made **following** the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's choice to raise his children counts for nothing because he did not, personally, give birth? =================================== How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. Because? A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF with his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!". ======================== And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it so men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their children will **not** fix that problem. ======================== Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off. Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal children are ripping off the men? THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist. I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess what, I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course, I have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in and of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently you disagree. =================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip What, exactly, became THEIR choice? Raising the child together, Chris. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. You stated: " The fact that the woman could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give birth. I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is "no longer in play". Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only choice left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part. Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been that, depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe haven, once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him choosing to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the dialogue. And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I twisted ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away from children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind. chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris. "That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only tapdancing being done is by YOU. I repeat: once the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out. And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give birth. =========================== No, Chris. Yes it is. That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after* the safe haven option. Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it? Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made **following** the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's choice to raise his children counts for nothing because he did not, personally, give birth? Er... the father's options are actually limited on whether to engage in coitus or not and sometimes not even that given that a few men have been court ordered to be (absent) "father" and the probably millions of men who have been duped into paying for children conceived by cuckolding. Once conception occurs, the father has no choices except to abide by the result of the mother's choice, IF she even tells him about it. He may want to raise his children but the outcome is still not his to decide. At best, the mother will allow it without interference, at worst, name him as a pedophile to use the courts to keep him from the children while extracting too much money in C$. It is not atypical for a man and woman to marry and have children, both acting as parents only to have the wife file for divorce and try to limit the time between children and father while demanding he step up and be the kind of father she demands he be. His choices to raise his children count for nothing UNLESS the mother approves. She is the ONLY one with real choice beyond the sex act. =================================== How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris? No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of making; a concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike. Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that child has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman. Because? A man cannot say, 15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to these childre, so I have no responsibility toward them." But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF with his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!". ======================== And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it so men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their children will **not** fix that problem. ======================== Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off. Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal children are ripping off the men? It doesn't matter if he is, the fact is that millions do and by putting sole responsibility on the one with sole choice puts the horse in the correct barn. If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility, more power to him. Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time. THAT is where I deiagree with you, Chris. Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist. I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But guess what, I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of course, I have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not, in and of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently you disagree. =================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. Phil #3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 08:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |