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

Things to think of before you get married again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old October 11th 06, 03:03 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


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

"Fred" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote

................................

Instead of responding with substance, you respond with a sleazy cheap
shot.
==
"Sleazy?" "Cheap shot?" You don't get out much, do you Fred?
==
If you are going to play cheap, sleazy games, I won't deal with you.

Now then, what's "baby dropoff"?

And don't refer me to Andre's screed. I want a substantive description
that differentiates between whatever y'all are talking about and
adoption.

Now get to work or go away.
==
Do your own work. (You can't afford to hire me. )
See, I already know what it means so I don't have to look it up.


Then we have nothing further to discuss.

==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure
everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of
the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry
unhampered.




  #232  
Old October 11th 06, 03:07 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.
Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required

to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no
mandatory
medical information."
So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very

serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.
I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and

force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't

want.
Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital

drug
to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,
give

the
child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it.
Instead,

she
chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.
I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of
the unwanted child?


Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility -
father
should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire
department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child is
"unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child.


That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do
just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do,
even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child.
That's just reality.

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what you
want? I don't.


So we can force men to be responsible, but, since we can't force poor widdle
women to be responsible, we won't. We'll just go after the men even harder.
Freddi must be a politician!


If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the
child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion,
the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason
that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling
to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the
firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the
firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the
preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a
dumpster.


Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still
flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and
killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late
term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another
post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no
meaningful punishments for these types of crimes.

It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers are
abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them
"parents"
just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse.


I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between having
a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting the
irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe harbor"
law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the irresponsible
mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die in a dumpster.
What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob.


Hallelujah, Brother, you preach it. Kick that evil satan man. Amen!!
Praise the Almighty Woman! Preach it, Brother!!



  #233  
Old October 11th 06, 03:11 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong

opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the

Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.

Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a

mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of

prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required
to

do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory
medical information."

So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.


I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and
force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want.


Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women for
having a child they didn't want.

Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired
these unwanted children as well?


Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women can
live off of public money and child support. How about if women start being
prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle your mind a
bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not talking about
just the safe haven kids.


Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital
drug
to stop the pregnancy,


Legal right, not legal responsibility.

have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.


We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS
MEN, Moon! Pay attention!


give the
child up for adoption,


What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're
adopted.

or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she
chose to have the child and then abandon it.


Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for
adoption.


Oh yes they are. But you already knew that.


The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.


Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven'
is not abandonment.


Of course it is.


  #234  
Old October 11th 06, 03:20 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Update, with a little further research I've discovered that
apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder
of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man
without asking questions...but only a couple...
...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption...


So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it
about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to
pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ...


[sanctimony deleted]


Again no real answer, but just a put-down. Typical (And this coming from a
man--maybe a woman-- who doesn't even care enough to look up safe haven
laws)


The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in
adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing
to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full
responsibility for the child(ern) themselves...


Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government
agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that
task. But yes, it has to be done.


snicker cop out!! Didn't even know what they were but is now vigorously
defending them, as if he is the expert. chuckle


... in safe haven/drop off situations there is no such requirement, you
just dump the infant and walk away...no strings attached and the child
becomes the ward of the state. It's interesting that the primary
objection by many to allowing fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an
objection to the state "paying for" someone else's child yet this is
*exactly* what occurs in a "safe haven/drop-off situation for
women....hummm


Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the
child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the child
die in a dumpster.

What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial
responsibility.


snicker What a dork



I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly
rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset
than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to
date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no
one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that
favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of
fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO NOT
stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive
rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably
unconstitutional to boot...


Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you
like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing
interests to consider. In my opinion, the overriding interest must be in
protecting the child, and if that means that we have to let mom walk away,
distasteful though that may be, when the alternative is seeing the child
die in a dumpster, then that's what we have to do. You don't have to like
it, but for the sake of that child I really do think that you're gonna
have to put up with it.



  #235  
Old October 11th 06, 03:21 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, or y'all are not
communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the
welfare of the child. I hate to think that it is the last, but when
you'd rather see a child put out on the street rather than see child
support used to put a roof over its head, I really do have to wonder
what's going on here. Please clarify.


What's really going on is called alimony for the mother and the state
gets a percentage of the outrages CS rates that they determine. It has
nothing to do with the child!

Then I take it that you would rather see the child put out on the street.

I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to saying
that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing is
demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and the
child be damned.



chuckle Attack, attack, attack. You do know that not one penny of child
support is legally required to be spent on a child, don't you?


Disgusting.


Yes, Fred, you are


  #236  
Old October 11th 06, 05:42 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


Fred wrote:
wrote:
Fred wrote:
wrote:
Fred -

You are Fred aren't you, and not Cindy, Sharon, Luoise, or some other
feminist disguising yourself to make it look like you are chivalrous?
What kind of a stupid question is that?

[more abject stupidity deleted]


Just as I thought ... attack the messenger and ignore the message.


What message? Seriously, what message? I just went back and looked, on
the off chance that I missed something of substance, and all I saw was
the same silly-ass, irrelevant, red herrings as before. That's not a
message, it's a joke.

Perhaps you'd like to tackle something of substance. When you do, let me
know.


Let's see, you're whole rant is about cause and effect in regards to
enjoyment/satisfaction - men should be responsible for their actions,
or be abstainant. With the resultant likelihood is conception.
Correct? My analogy is no different, except instead of a likelihood of
conception there is a likelihood of death (or mame). Other than that,
the semantics translate. However, I'm talking to a close-minded
individual who has no concept of analogies unless they support their
own agenda. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the
message/concept is foreign to you.

  #237  
Old October 11th 06, 07:06 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"Fred" wrote
......................
I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to saying
that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing is
demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and the
child be damned.

==
It is about the money Fred--And the fact that the CP isn't required to spend
a dime of it on the child. While you're sitting there at your computer
pretending
to know what you're talking about, some CP somewhere is spending the child's
support money
on pot, beer, and coke. That you support such neglect is repulsive! Don't
come in here with your
holier than thou attitude when there are children at high risk every day
because of your ignorance
of the system and refusal to get involved! What a bunch of crap! You don't
give a damn about those kids! Go spew your
vileness elsewhere. You're despicable! How many of those at risk kids have
you adopted, Fred?
Wanna know how many of them I and my family have adopted? Nah, you don't
give a damn. All you care
about is that the money keeps flowing to the custodial parent. You and your
ilk are sickening!


  #238  
Old October 11th 06, 07:11 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Fred" wrote

.....................................
Then we have nothing further to discuss.

==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm
sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer
any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry
unhampered.

==
Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell that
correctly?




  #239  
Old October 11th 06, 07:16 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for their
choices. What's wrong with that?


There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take
responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no
different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking
problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are
those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and
then there those who see they are responsible for their actions/choices.


Exactly.

These boys are the ultimate in sexist selfishness. If they can't control
the woman, they want nothing to do with her ... and their children. And,
of course, that means not having to support the children that they
actively, willingly, and with informed consent participated in
procreating.

"She's being irresponsible!", they bleat, claiming this as justification
for their own claims to irresponsible behavior. Well, even if/when she
*is* being irresponsible, that absolutely does not justify their being
irresponsible in turn. This is simply a copout.

And for the record, I refer to them as "boys" because in my opinion they
are not men.

Men take responsibility.


Fred - I'm liking you more and more each day! You are right, men take
responsibility and boys don't!

My counselor described my s2bx as a person who is suffering from Narcissism.
When I looked up the disorder I found my s2bx's described perfectly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciss...ality_disorder

"These traits will lead narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some
ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they
do not respond adequately to the parents' needs. This punishment may take a
variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts
to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it
takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the
parents' narcissistic needs."

Examples include my s2bx blaming his middle child for the break up of our
marriage. I had to talk to my step-son before they moved out to reassure
him that I don't blame him, and I want him to know it within himself that
the break up was not his fault. My s2bx told his 11 year old daughter "you
are acting just like your mother, a slut." Not to mention the several times
me and his friends would cringe when he would remind his kids out of anger
that he never wanted them, and the only reason he ended up with custody was
to avoid paying child support & alimony to their mother. He has called both
his sons worthless, plus many other damaging things. Of course he was
always under the influence of alcohol during his angry outbursts, but
alcohol can't be used as an excuse for such horrifying behavior as a parent,
or even as a husband.

I had to often wonder if I married a man in his 40's or a teenager who just
received his license to drive!

Tracy



  #240  
Old October 11th 06, 07:19 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

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

"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Fred" wrote

....................................
Then we have nothing further to discuss.
==
Don't forget your ball, Fred.


She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm
sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to
answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and
bigotry unhampered.

==
Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell
that correctly?


She posts from soc.men. This tread is not seen in that newgroup.


 




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
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 28th 05 06:27 AM
Parent-Child Negotiations Nathan A. Barclay Spanking 623 January 28th 05 05:24 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 November 28th 04 06:16 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.