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
  #111  
Old May 17th 08, 02:43 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
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
...

"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.


"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes
to
a woman's choice to bear a child.

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.


That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.


IMO you are mixing up parental responsibilities with parental obligations.
They are not the same thing so lumping them together is totally illogical.
And it is even more illogical to claim either of those concepts are tied to
childbirth decisions.

  #112  
Old May 17th 08, 02:45 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
...

"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.


"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes
to
a woman's choice to bear a child.


Liar, Chris. You ******choose****** to think of all women the same--as
users, and yourself as a poor widdle victim. That is a CHOICE you make.


Precisely WHAT did I say that leads you to believe so?

And, in order to continue to validate you choice to think that way, you
****choose**** to speak ill of all women, as if all women are the authors

of
your bitterness. Grow up, Chris.


Ok, I grew up. Now explain this "bitterness" to which you refer.



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.


That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.


Liar. You know you are lying, but you are doing so anyway, in order to
validate your own victimhood.


When did you change your mind?

I have said many, many times that today's
system is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you will only accept that if the

person
you are talking to agrees 100% with your own pathetic stand on men NEVER
having any responsibility toward children unless they magnanimously choose
to provide for children that they are in no way obligated to.


Why do you think it is pathetic to not be responsible for someone ELSE'S
choice?

Your solution
is as evil as the system you hate so passionately.


In YOUR opinion. Perhaps you should post on alt.opinion.





  #113  
Old May 17th 08, 02:47 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
...

.
"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.


One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.


You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.


Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil.





  #114  
Old May 17th 08, 03:16 AM 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
...

"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.


Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




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.


And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.

===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.
========================




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.


It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements
that runs the "child support" industry.

=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things, MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your thought
process has led you.
===================


  #115  
Old May 17th 08, 03:20 AM 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
...


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.


"Help produce"? Well guess what, the grandmother "helped produce" the
child
too. Without HER biological contribution, there would be no child. So
guess
she should also bear responsibility.


Your grandmother inserted her penis into the vagina of a fertile young
woman, providing the sperm that connected to an egg and began a child? You
have one amazing grandmother, Chris!


Indeed, I would GLADLY replace the "family" court whackjobs with
"whackjobs"
who can make the connection between responsibilities and rights. But then
there would no longer be any such "family" court.


That's right--replace the whackjobs that are screwing you with whackjobs who
will screw someone else. Nice, Chris, really nice.......


  #116  
Old May 17th 08, 03:23 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked


"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.


You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate
so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.


Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil.


Look at the system you hate so much, replace those who cater to women with
those who cater to men and--voila--there is the system you espouse.


  #117  
Old May 17th 08, 05:24 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
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]

.
.
"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!


What's crap is FORCING a man into responsibility for a choice that was
impossible for him to make!


I chose to become the father of my children. My choice was by free will and
not some judicial authority making me become a father by fiat.


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.


Fine, then YOU stand up against their guns.


Your way doesn't work. Period. But my way allows me to parent as I define
the role of parenting. I guess that is why I am not bitter about being 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.


I was referring to responsibility, not rights.


So let's cut to the chase. Is the obligation to support your children a
right or a responsibility in your eyes? I say it is both and marital status
or circumstances have nothing to do with the basic parental obligation.


Fathers have every right to reach
out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what

any
court says.


How do you determine which laws one has the right to violate?


A person can choose to violate any law. I choose top violate no laws.


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.


Which is PRECISELY the problem! The so-called "family" court enforces
reponsibility while at the same time DENYING the accompanying rights.
Additionally, they heap such responsibility upon those who are incapable
of
making the choice that merits the responsibility in the first place. Get
it?


Continuing to equate every family law issues to a court's decision is
insane. Half of all marriages remain intact and the family courts never
have a say in the parental rights and responsibilities of those children or
what those parents do.

  #118  
Old May 17th 08, 07:05 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
...

"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.


Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




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.


And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always

believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.

===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.


Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice.

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




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.


It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements
that runs the "child support" industry.

=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things,

MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your

thought
process has led you.


I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is anything BUT
like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that
responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist without the
other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the
opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay
anyone anything. Get it right.

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




  #119  
Old May 17th 08, 07:13 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
...

"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.


I don't tell you what YOU want, so please don't tell me what I want.
Again, what makes them different?






  #120  
Old May 17th 08, 07:26 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
...

"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.

Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




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.

And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always

believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.

===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.


Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice.

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




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.

It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above
statements
that runs the "child support" industry.

=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things,

MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your

thought
process has led you.


I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is anything
BUT
like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that
responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist without
the
other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the
opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay
anyone anything. Get it right.


So you are thinking that when good old dad walks out because he did not
choose to et pregnant and give birth himself--and takes his paycheck with
him which, until that time, had helped support the household--mom is **not**
going to have to pay anything? Hmmm....interesting......

But then you have consistently maintained that no man anywhere should ever,
ever, ever have any responsibility toward a child if he doesn't want to
because he does not have a uterus. YOU are malionh biology the determinant
of responsibility, because you **know** that you will never have the parts
to bring a child to birth. But you do not seem to understand the first
thing about being a father. You only think about you and what you should be
able to get out of it for fun and for free. So mature on your part,
Chrissy.......


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FL: Child-support bill clears panel Dusty Child Support 2 April 15th 06 10:49 PM
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support Dusty Child Support 7 April 6th 06 05:53 AM
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail Dusty Child Support 22 January 26th 06 08:44 PM
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill Dusty Child Support 2 May 24th 05 02:17 AM
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support Dusty Child Support 28 June 23rd 04 04:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 PM.


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