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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of the unwanted child? If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion, the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a dumpster. |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively for said child and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage, SUV payment? You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's interest. [sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced. But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that implies. Vicious circle. BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child lives is somehow not in the child's interest? I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to pay the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves. I see. As usual, it's all about the money, not the child. Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the welfare of the child. I hate to think that it is the last, but when you'd rather see a child put out on the street rather than see child support used to put a roof over its head, I really do have to wonder what's going on here. Please clarify. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ask Fred if it is ok by him if fathers drop their babies off at safe haven
spots, too, Bob. He won't even answer me any more, and I really like to know if he supports a father's right to walk away from responsibility via safe haven, too. "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of the unwanted child? Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility - father should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child is "unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child. If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion, the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a dumpster. Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no meaningful punishments for these types of crimes. It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers are abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them "parents" just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... ?-? wrote: "Fred" wrote in Both base child support on the combined gross incomes of both parents, That's after they impute his income up and impute her income down, then it's calulated. Have a friend whose ex's income was imputed down to the point of where they said she was earning only $800/mth as an RN. What jurisdiction? Wayne County, Michigan! So of the $1600/mth he brings home and now imputed to $2000/mth, his responsibility according to the Kourt is now $800/mth to support the child and it's mother. He's already in arrears, so how does this work for your responsibility theory? |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the welfare of the child. I hate to think that it is the last, but when you'd rather see a child put out on the street rather than see child support used to put a roof over its head, I really do have to wonder what's going on here. Please clarify. What's really going on is called alimony for the mother and the state gets a percentage of the outrages CS rates that they determine. It has nothing to do with the child! |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$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. Have a lovely day. Unless you don't want to. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women for having a child they didn't want. Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired these unwanted children as well? Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. give the child up for adoption, What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're adopted. or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for adoption. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven' is not abandonment. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote ................................... Perhaps you'd like to tackle something of substance. When you do, let me know. == Umm, we have Fred. You just didn't get it. Whoosh! |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote Ask Fred if it is ok by him if fathers drop their babies off at safe haven spots, too, Bob. He won't even answer me any more, and I really like to know if he supports a father's right to walk away from responsibility via safe haven, too. == He must. He's already stated that both parents should be treated equally after the birth. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 28th 05 05:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |