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
  #71  
Old May 4th 08, 05:41 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.


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  
Old May 4th 08, 06:23 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.


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  
Old May 4th 08, 06:44 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.


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  
Old May 5th 08, 07:44 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
...

"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  
Old May 5th 08, 02:46 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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  
Old May 6th 08, 07:28 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
...
.
"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  
Old May 7th 08, 02:36 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
...
.
"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  
Old May 8th 08, 04:23 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
...
.
"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  
Old May 9th 08, 01:29 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
...
.
"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  
Old May 9th 08, 02:02 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default 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

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 11:15 AM.


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.