A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TN - Child support termination bill attacked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 2nd 08, 11:50 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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
...

"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?

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.






The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the

law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from

which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage
equates
to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the

man.
Isn't that special.

Nope--onto **them** Not just her, not just him **Them**


Nice play on semantics. The responsibility that gets shifted onto him is
no
longer on her; hence it is NOT "them". Remember, she is the shifter and

he
is the shiftee.

Something you
don't seeem to believe in. You are as bad as the CS folks, Chris.


Thank you for your opinion; but my claim remains true.


Not even close.


What, specifically, is false about my claim? And please don't say "all of
it" or "all of them", as I have made many claims. Be specific.





  #62  
Old May 3rd 08, 03:34 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"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.


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.



  #63  
Old May 3rd 08, 05:23 AM posted to alt.child-support
Gini[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"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?



  #64  
Old May 3rd 08, 06:33 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Gini" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"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?




  #65  
Old May 3rd 08, 07:07 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Gini" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"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.


  #66  
Old May 3rd 08, 04:31 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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
...

"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?



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.






  #67  
Old May 3rd 08, 06:25 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"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. 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. How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, Chris?



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.


  #68  
Old May 4th 08, 12:33 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"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.





  #69  
Old May 4th 08, 02:30 AM posted to alt.child-support
Gini[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"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?



  #70  
Old May 4th 08, 04:36 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Gini" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"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:[email protected]
"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.