Runnin from Custodial Parent

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Relayer wrote:
"Chris" wrote:

Newsflash: Men don't make children.

Yes they do.

Are you insane? Men don't make children. At most they make sperm.
Only women make children.

Nonsense. It takes both the man's and the woman's contribution to
create
the child.

I guess "Goodyear" makes cars..........

Are you denying that it requires a man's sperm to create a child?

NO! I actually affirm it by inference in my above statement.

My point
of disagreement with the system is not that a man has no responsibility
in
the creation of the child, because. of course, he does. It's that, after
conception, all rights belong to the woman--the man is just along for
whatever ride she chooses to take.

Your above two claims violate the concept of rights/responsibilities. In
other words, they are mutually exclusive statements.

Huh? The man and the woman are equally responsible for the conception of
the child, each having supplied their half of the necessary components. But
after conception, the woman has all the rights. How are the 2 mutually
exclusive?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 27, 3:17 pm, "Chris" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 26, 6:43 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Very Determined!" wrote in

Which some one cross posted to talk.abortion. Any SOB that
father a
child and refuses to support that child, should be fixed like a
stray
dog.
That is an excellent idea!

Lets extend that to woman that can't afford to feed their own
kids!

It wouldn't need to be extended to women, once the deadbeat *******s
are fixed, they can't make anymore children to abandon financially,
and there wouldn't be any women that couldn't support their kids.

Translation: So long as the lazy woman is extorting free cash from the
biological father of her children, SHE is supporting them.

It's thinking like this that is perpetuating generational welfare.



Does
DB stand for dead beat?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what about the women who do work?

That's good. They should. And they should definitely provide their
share
of the needs of the child--and all of the luxuries that she feels her
child
needs, since the father should not be required to provide for more than
just
needs.

"Their share" is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! Since the mother made the SOLE
(legal)
choice to create her child, and she has the SOLE (legal) right to such
child, it follows that she should also be SOLELY responsible for the care
of
her child. What's wrong with my equation?

You say that even when a married couple decide to have a child, and it is a
mutual decision, Chris.

Very Determined wrote:

FYI, I am not looking for a handout, for ten years I left him alone, figured he would do the right thing.

But then she later wrote:

It means that after searching high and low for the NCP for 10 years, and finding him in prison for domestic violence...

So contrary to what you wanted us to believe at the beginning, you
only "left him alone" for ten years because you couldn't find him!
Turns out you've spent ten years(!) trying to trackdown a guy you
believe is a scumbag. What a pitiful waste of ten years.

VD wrote:

My current husband worked two jobs, killing himself, and I worked full time too so that we could eat, live, and my child could be well educated ...And we did what we had to do, because life wasn't fair
my child should not have to suffer, and we did whatever we had to do to make sure he has what TWO parents should give him.

With my health issues my husband had to leave his second job, to help run the household and take care of me, therefore financially we hurt because HE takes care of all his children including two others from a previous marriage.

How many kids did you say you had with your husband? You had one out-
of-wedlock from a previous relationship, your husband has two from a
previous relationship(s), and you have at least two together. Ya'll
should be fixed. People - man, woman, CP, or NCP - who think they can
just keep producing kids without considering all the financial and
emotional ramifications of the twisted dynamics they're creating get
no sympathy from me. You faulted your bio/ncp for going off and making
more children, but you've done the same. Guess what's ok for the goose
isn't ok for the gander in your opinion.


He [biofather/NCP at issue] and I chose to create this child,

Really? The two of you as an unmarried couple having a dysfunctional
relationship (I say dysfunctional because you claim it was an abusive
relationship) sat down and discussed having a baby and made a concrete
desicion together to have and raise a child together? Or did you just
let yourself get knocked up by this guy you claim was an abusive
loser?

and I chose to nurture and bear him.

uhhuh.

he was told once again where his child lives,( in the same place for 14 years)

...FYI, I wanted to clarify when that lien was placed in Nov of 06, last year, he was running 13 1/2 years before that,

I am not whimpering over a man "I" left 12 1/2 years ago for abuse. I am happily married and have been for 12 years...

It means that after searching high and low for the NCP for 10 years, and finding him

Your alleged timeline makes no sense.
You married your current husband a mere six months after leaving the
NCP. That was either a whirlwind courtship, or you were involved with
him already while still with the NCP. (Can you say a-f-f-a-i-r?)
You say the NCP has been running for 14 1/2 years, but you only left
him 12 1/2 yrs ago. So what was he running from for the 2 yrs you were
still with him?

I think you were involved with a loser and knew it and when you got
knocked up you went Daddy shopping and got hitched to a guy you
thought would be a better provider and daddy, and now your sore that
you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want daddy#2 to be the emotional daddy, but you want daddy#1 to be
paycheck daddy and it just ain't working for ya'.

OH - as far as hubby adopting son. Scary for him! Once he does that,
HE will be responsible for CS to you for that kid when you leave him.
Good for you because you can replace daddy#1 who's not paying with
daddy#2 who might pay, but oh so bad for current hubby.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Relayer wrote:
"Chris" wrote:

Newsflash: Men don't make children.

Yes they do.

Are you insane? Men don't make children. At most they make
sperm.
Only women make children.

Nonsense. It takes both the man's and the woman's contribution to
create
the child.

I guess "Goodyear" makes cars..........

Are you denying that it requires a man's sperm to create a child?

NO! I actually affirm it by inference in my above statement.

My point
of disagreement with the system is not that a man has no responsibility
in
the creation of the child, because. of course, he does. It's that,
after
conception, all rights belong to the woman--the man is just along for
whatever ride she chooses to take.

Your above two claims violate the concept of rights/responsibilities. In
other words, they are mutually exclusive statements.

Huh? The man and the woman are equally responsible for the conception of
the child, each having supplied their half of the necessary components.
But
after conception, the woman has all the rights. How are the 2 mutually
exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive because rights and responsibilities can NOT be
separated. For those who are not aware, they are a package deal. If he is
laden with the responsibility, then he is entitled to the rights. If he is
denied the rights, then he is not responsible. Such a concept is obvious to
anyone with clear thinking.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 27, 3:17 pm, "Chris" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 26, 6:43 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Very Determined!" wrote in

Which some one cross posted to talk.abortion. Any SOB that
father a
child and refuses to support that child, should be fixed like
a
stray
dog.
That is an excellent idea!

Lets extend that to woman that can't afford to feed their own
kids!

It wouldn't need to be extended to women, once the deadbeat
*******s
are fixed, they can't make anymore children to abandon
financially,
and there wouldn't be any women that couldn't support their kids.

Translation: So long as the lazy woman is extorting free cash from
the
biological father of her children, SHE is supporting them.

It's thinking like this that is perpetuating generational welfare.



Does
DB stand for dead beat?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what about the women who do work?

That's good. They should. And they should definitely provide their
share
of the needs of the child--and all of the luxuries that she feels her
child
needs, since the father should not be required to provide for more than
just
needs.

"Their share" is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! Since the mother made the SOLE
(legal)
choice to create her child, and she has the SOLE (legal) right to such
child, it follows that she should also be SOLELY responsible for the
care
of
her child. What's wrong with my equation?

You say that even when a married couple decide to have a child, and it is
a
mutual decision, Chris.

It's NOT a mutual decision. Is not now, never has been, and probably never
will be. Apparently, you are equating desire with choice. Doesn't work that
way.

wrote in message
ps.com...
Very Determined wrote:

FYI, I am not looking for a handout, for ten years I left him alone,
figured he would do the right thing.

But then she later wrote:

It means that after searching high and low for the NCP for 10 years, and
finding him in prison for domestic violence...

So contrary to what you wanted us to believe at the beginning, you
only "left him alone" for ten years because you couldn't find him!
Turns out you've spent ten years(!) trying to trackdown a guy you
believe is a scumbag. What a pitiful waste of ten years.

VD wrote:

"VD"? That's rich!


My current husband worked two jobs, killing himself, and I worked full
time too so that we could eat, live, and my child could be well educated
....And we did what we had to do, because life wasn't fair
my child should not have to suffer, and we did whatever we had to do to
make sure he has what TWO parents should give him.

With my health issues my husband had to leave his second job, to help run
the household and take care of me, therefore financially we hurt because HE
takes care of all his children including two others from a previous
marriage.

How many kids did you say you had with your husband? You had one out-
of-wedlock from a previous relationship, your husband has two from a
previous relationship(s), and you have at least two together. Ya'll
should be fixed. People - man, woman, CP, or NCP - who think they can
just keep producing kids without considering all the financial and
emotional ramifications of the twisted dynamics they're creating get
no sympathy from me. You faulted your bio/ncp for going off and making
more children, but you've done the same. Guess what's ok for the goose
isn't ok for the gander in your opinion.

But it's a DIFFERENT sauce. Didn't you know that?



He [biofather/NCP at issue] and I chose to create this child,

Really? The two of you as an unmarried couple having a dysfunctional
relationship (I say dysfunctional because you claim it was an abusive
relationship) sat down and discussed having a baby and made a concrete
desicion together to have and raise a child together? Or did you just
let yourself get knocked up by this guy you claim was an abusive
loser?

and I chose to nurture and bear him.

uhhuh.

he was told once again where his child lives,( in the same place for 14
years)

...FYI, I wanted to clarify when that lien was placed in Nov of 06, last
year, he was running 13 1/2 years before that,

I am not whimpering over a man "I" left 12 1/2 years ago for abuse. I am
happily married and have been for 12 years...

It means that after searching high and low for the NCP for 10 years, and
finding him

Your alleged timeline makes no sense.
You married your current husband a mere six months after leaving the
NCP. That was either a whirlwind courtship, or you were involved with
him already while still with the NCP. (Can you say a-f-f-a-i-r?)
You say the NCP has been running for 14 1/2 years, but you only left
him 12 1/2 yrs ago. So what was he running from for the 2 yrs you were
still with him?

I think you were involved with a loser and knew it and when you got
knocked up you went Daddy shopping and got hitched to a guy you
thought would be a better provider and daddy, and now your sore that
you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want daddy#2 to be the emotional daddy, but you want daddy#1 to be
paycheck daddy and it just ain't working for ya'.

OH - as far as hubby adopting son. Scary for him! Once he does that,
HE will be responsible for CS to you for that kid when you leave him.
Good for you because you can replace daddy#1 who's not paying with
daddy#2 who might pay, but oh so bad for current hubby.

Yeah, but look at the bright side. At least she stands a better chance of
rollin' in the dough with "daddy" #2. And if THAT well dries up, she can
abandon it and hook up with, you got it, ................... daddy number
THREE!

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 27, 3:17 pm, "Chris" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 26, 6:43 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Very Determined!" wrote in

Which some one cross posted to talk.abortion. Any SOB that
father a
child and refuses to support that child, should be fixed like a
stray
dog.
That is an excellent idea!

Lets extend that to woman that can't afford to feed their own kids!

It wouldn't need to be extended to women, once the deadbeat *******s
are fixed, they can't make anymore children to abandon financially,
and there wouldn't be any women that couldn't support their kids.

Translation: So long as the lazy woman is extorting free cash from the
biological father of her children, SHE is supporting them.

It's thinking like this that is perpetuating generational welfare.



Does
DB stand for dead beat?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what about the women who do work?

What about them? I was making reference to the concept of "you owe me in
spite of the fact that you received NOTHING from me".

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Relayer wrote:
"Chris" wrote:

Newsflash: Men don't make children.

Yes they do.

Are you insane? Men don't make children. At most they make
sperm.
Only women make children.

Nonsense. It takes both the man's and the woman's contribution to
create
the child.

I guess "Goodyear" makes cars..........

Are you denying that it requires a man's sperm to create a child?

NO! I actually affirm it by inference in my above statement.

My point
of disagreement with the system is not that a man has no
responsibility
in
the creation of the child, because. of course, he does. It's that,
after
conception, all rights belong to the woman--the man is just along for
whatever ride she chooses to take.

Your above two claims violate the concept of rights/responsibilities.
In
other words, they are mutually exclusive statements.

Huh? The man and the woman are equally responsible for the conception of
the child, each having supplied their half of the necessary components.
But
after conception, the woman has all the rights. How are the 2 mutually
exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive because rights and responsibilities can NOT be
separated. For those who are not aware, they are a package deal. If he is
laden with the responsibility, then he is entitled to the rights. If he is
denied the rights, then he is not responsible. Such a concept is obvious
to
anyone with clear thinking.

Chris, like the idea or not, BOTH are responsible for the conception. It
took BOTH to provide the materials. That's just the way it is.
Unfortunately, AFTER the comception, the woman has the rights and the man
does not. BUT, for the comceptiopn, they are equally responsible.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 27, 3:17 pm, "Chris" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 26, 6:43 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Very Determined!" wrote in

Which some one cross posted to talk.abortion. Any SOB that
father a
child and refuses to support that child, should be fixed
like
a
stray
dog.
That is an excellent idea!

Lets extend that to woman that can't afford to feed their own
kids!

It wouldn't need to be extended to women, once the deadbeat
*******s
are fixed, they can't make anymore children to abandon
financially,
and there wouldn't be any women that couldn't support their kids.

Translation: So long as the lazy woman is extorting free cash from
the
biological father of her children, SHE is supporting them.

It's thinking like this that is perpetuating generational welfare.



Does
DB stand for dead beat?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what about the women who do work?

That's good. They should. And they should definitely provide their
share
of the needs of the child--and all of the luxuries that she feels her
child
needs, since the father should not be required to provide for more
than
just
needs.

"Their share" is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT! Since the mother made the SOLE
(legal)
choice to create her child, and she has the SOLE (legal) right to such
child, it follows that she should also be SOLELY responsible for the
care
of
her child. What's wrong with my equation?

You say that even when a married couple decide to have a child, and it is
a
mutual decision, Chris.

It's NOT a mutual decision. Is not now, never has been, and probably never
will be. Apparently, you are equating desire with choice. Doesn't work
that
way.

And it is exacely your kind of extreme thinking that has brought about the
unfairness of today's system, Chris.

On Sep 27, 5:27 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 26, 3:56 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Sep 26, 12:28 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Paula" wrote

"Gini" wrote:
wrote
..............................

Idiot-she said she left it alone for 10 years-not that she has
been
trying to collct for 10 years. Point is, nobody forced him to
spill
his seed to make a child, and there is a court order for support,
he
needs to pay it. She didn't ask simple minded people to come
down
on
her, she asked for advice on how to collect her child support.
You
do
seem to have a lot of things deadbeat, non-custodial parents like
to
hear, so go to one of thier blogs and sgree with them. I'm sure
you'll
make many friends there!

==
Idiot. Who the hell are you to come in here and chastize the
regular
folks
who
have been here for years--I've been her for over 10 years. This is
a
*father's* rights group in nature. If you can't deal with it, take
your
babble elsewhere!
Next time, lurk before you open your mouth in a newsgroup and come
off
looking totally
ignorant.

Who the hell are you to take ownership of an internet newsgroup?!?

Last I checked this was a group dedicated to the discussion
of child support issues, thus the name. You are the one
who just came off looking totally ignorant by attempting to
stifle disucussion of a point of view just because it doesn't
match your own.

==
VBG
Apparently, you have a reading problem. See, he was the one spouting
off
because we didn't agree
with him and he told us to go elsewhere. Let me break it down for you.
He
said."Idiot...
You do seem to have a lot of things deadbeat, non-custodial parents
like
to
hear, so go
to one of thier blogs and sgree with them. I'm sure you'll
make many friends there." Now, don't you feel foolish as well?
Perhaps
you
should just do a little research of usenet conventions and come back
when
you're all grown up.

Why should my comments, that everyone has a right to
their opinion and to post it here, make me feel foolish?

==
Umm, you were defending the one who did so. Look up there ^
==

What usenet convention is it that you think I don't
understand, Gini?

Resorting to name calling ... just who here is it who is
bahving in an immature manner? Not I said the fly.

==
Umm, you were defending the one who did so. Look up there^
Don't get out much, do you? :-)
==

You're slippin', Gini ... 'cause that doesn't even make sense.

==
Try to keep up, Paula. It's really very elementary and I have no
intention of spoon-feeding you anymore.

Wow, you're quite laughable lately. Too hot down there for ya?