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
  #91  
Old May 16th 08, 03:55 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT
going to fix that.


Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the

options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come

an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and
options.


I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years

and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not

give
birth to them.


Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice.




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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You

cannot
hark back to the "birth choice" forever.


Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for

12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.


A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.


Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.


Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to

do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I

didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?


SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the

birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to

continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to,

not
that it was necessary.


But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.


Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!


Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever
get any.


I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a

lot
of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward

fathers.
I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.


Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane people.
And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts!






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.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the

legal
right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility
toward them, Phil?


I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.


There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to
have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other

parent
suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child.


Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER!

If a parent
decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should

pay
for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for
their own choices!


Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth.





  #92  
Old May 16th 08, 04:33 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the

options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come

an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and
options.


I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years

and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not

give
birth to them.


Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held
LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice.




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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You

cannot
hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for

12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.


A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.


Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.


Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to

do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I

didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?


SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the

birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to

continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to,

not
that it was necessary.


But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.


Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise
them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!


No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time
limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever
get any.


I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a

lot
of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward

fathers.
I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.


Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane
people.
And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts!


It can't last forever.....


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.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the

legal
right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility
toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.


There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses
to
have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other

parent
suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child.


Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER!


You seem to like the idea of being able to sow your seed whereever you
choose with never a thought as to what happens after that. You sound like a
totally irresponsible, uncaring person.


If a parent
decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should

pay
for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for
their own choices!


Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth.


You come across as a bitter, angry person, Chris. Oh, well.....


  #93  
Old May 16th 08, 05:07 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
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much

pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in
reverse.

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is

NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL

responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?


The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice.

==================================


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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot

hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?


Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire
rights, no?

================================


I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent
does not have, Chris!


Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into

a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care

for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.


Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him!





  #94  
Old May 16th 08, 05:18 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should

come
an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility

and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that

a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years
and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did
not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate

and
unilateral decision is the mothers only.


So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,

Phil.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.


Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?


That depends on how the contract is written.


The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at

all,
is completely unpalatable.


Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


YES, it is!






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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment

for
12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.


Yet the principle is the same.


Not at all.


Because?



My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.


No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded

or
even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours
alone.


Not at all true, Phil.


Perhaps on YOUR planet.



Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.


Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the

responsiblilty
you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the
custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck.

You
may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you
are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.


People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I

am
"pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You

are
far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are

still
decent, caring people in this world.


Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal. His
claim is true!



Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't.


But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU.


NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.


On YOUR planet, that may be.



So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?


With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.


Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women,

marry
them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come

along,
get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women
doing you WANT men to be able to do.


Women get women pregnant?
I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any children.
Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does he
have any right.

Is that truly how you want things to
be?



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced

to
continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.


It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to

my
sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a

stranger
that had the responsibility to pay his mother.


And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance

and
fairness.


A concept FOREIGN to you.


I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other

children,
vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody
"agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a

set
and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It

was
all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?


That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time

limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will

ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to

a
lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward
fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.


Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.


I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?



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.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.

Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses
to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the

other
parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a
parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent
should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people
responsible for their own choices!


Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the

children
from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree.


The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change.


Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke. Uhuh.
The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their industry
that they will shed their blood in doing so.





  #95  
Old May 16th 08, 05:38 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is

NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the

options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should

come
an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility

and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that

a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years

and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not

give
birth to them.


Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held
LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice.




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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You

cannot
hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment

for
12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.


Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.


Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice

to
do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I

didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?


SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the

birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to

continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to,

not
that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.


Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise
them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!


No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning


Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle?




Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time
limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will

ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to

a
lot
of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward

fathers.
I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.


Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane
people.
And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts!


It can't last forever.....


Neither can the sun.



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.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the

legal
right to abandon his children at any time with no legal

responsibility
toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.

Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses
to
have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other

parent
suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child.


Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER!


You seem to like the idea of being able to sow your seed whereever you
choose with never a thought as to what happens after that. You sound like

a
totally irresponsible, uncaring person.


Ad hominem. Care to contribute to the discussion?



If a parent
decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should

pay
for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible

for
their own choices!


Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth.


You come across as a bitter, angry person, Chris. Oh, well.....


Ad hominem.





  #96  
Old May 16th 08, 06:22 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...

================================


I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent
does not have, Chris!


Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.


What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights
and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are
only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free
will to be a parent.


But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into

a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care

for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.


Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!


I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to reach
out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any
court says. The children get it in the long run. And having parental
rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights,
you accept the responsibilities.

  #97  
Old May 16th 08, 06:35 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should

come
an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility

and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that

a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years
and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he**
did
not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate

and
unilateral decision is the mothers only.


So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,

Phil.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.


Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris.



I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.


Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?


That depends on how the contract is written.


Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should bear
the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what you
write.



The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at

all,
is completely unpalatable.


Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


YES, it is!


For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will
and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris. Who
cannot even begin to see that he is just as biased in favor of men as the
feminists he dplores are in fovor of women.







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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment

for
12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility
to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.


Not at all.


Because?


A child is a human being, Chris. Or has your cynicism taken you so far down
that you equate a house to a human being?




My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded

or
even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours
alone.


Not at all true, Phil.


Perhaps on YOUR planet.


I know you always need to believe that women are out to rob every man they
can of everything they can get. But not all of us choose to live in your
sad little world, Chris.




Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the

responsiblilty
you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the
custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck.

You
may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe
you
are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.


People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I

am
"pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You

are
far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are

still
decent, caring people in this world.


Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal. His
claim is true!


Of course, in your eyes it is irrelevant, Chris. It does not fit the little
world you have constructed for yourself. No man can ever choose to have
children--he always has to be cheated by a conniving woman--which is the
only kind of woman there is, right?




Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH
choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was
YOU.


NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.


On YOUR planet, that may be.



So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.


Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women,

marry
them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come

along,
get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women
doing you WANT men to be able to do.


Women get women pregnant?
I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any children.
Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does
he
have any right.


chuckle Sad, sad little man.......


Is that truly how you want things to
be?



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced

to
continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to

my
sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a

stranger
that had the responsibility to pay his mother.


And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance

and
fairness.


A concept FOREIGN to you.


That is what you need to believe so you can tar all women with the same
brush. You are as bad as the feminists you so deplore.



I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other

children,
vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody
"agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a

set
and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It

was
all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?


That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time

limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will

ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to

a
lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes
toward
fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.


Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.


I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less
damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?


chuckle Leave it to poor, sad little Chris to find a negative reason for
a positive statistic.




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.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.

Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent
chooses
to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the

other
parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a
parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that
parent
should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people
responsible for their own choices!

Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the

children
from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree.


The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change.


Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke.
Uhuh.
The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their
industry
that they will shed their blood in doing so.


And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in family
court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear absolutely
no responsibility for any children you might help produce.


  #98  
Old May 16th 08, 06:37 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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is

NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should

come
an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility

and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that

a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years
and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did
not
give
birth to them.

Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held
LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice.




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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot
hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment

for
12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.

Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice

to
do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to
continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed
to,
not
that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise
them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!


No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning


Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle?


You don't want to be enlightened, Chris. You want to change the current
darkness that you hate for darkness more to your liking.



  #99  
Old May 16th 08, 06:39 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
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so
much
pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in
reverse.

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.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is

NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL

responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?

The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice.

==================================


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.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot

hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?

Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire
rights, no?

================================


I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent
does not have, Chris!


Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into

a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care

for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.


Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!


Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find
that deplorable.


  #100  
Old May 16th 08, 06:42 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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

================================

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!


Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.


What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court
order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer
with their free will to be a parent.


But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into

a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care

for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.


Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!


I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to
reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of
what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having
parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want
the rights, you accept the responsibilities.


I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore
thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have no
responsibilities--that it should all be his choice. I vehemently disagree
with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at any
time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth.



 




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 11:25 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.