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
  #261  
Old October 12th 06, 03:08 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that
you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about
how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same
situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a
consequence of where that mean old man left his semen.
Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you
clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after
the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of
course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the
theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all
post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in
accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice,
all the consequences that follow from those choices should also
be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she
chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the
consequence is pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his
sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and
CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to
abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which
will most likely be the birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child
as well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her,
and from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that
follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on
top of all that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing
(or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think
this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's
still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities
toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life
of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also
should not be the bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other
parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the
rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no
rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the
same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the
default 50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If
Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If
mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 %
she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own
expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the
other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is
required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense,
it's the *other* parent's expense)

Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance
when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met,
why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want
to?

Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children
on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole
lot more that's going to be said here.

I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than
married parents are forced to provide, Moon.


Married parents are not required to work.

Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many
cases are not required to provide medical attention.

Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism.

But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all
the rest!


No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't
think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are
required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do
all those things and would probably like more help from your children's
father.


I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you
are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of
married parents.

I can
understand that. But I don't think the law should require anything of
him, you, or anyone else than it requires from married parents.





  #262  
Old October 12th 06, 03:17 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


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

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.


And you won't answer my question, either. Once again, you studiously
avoid answering the tough ones.

That's intellectually dishonest, Bob.


I never typed that. You are mixing up the posters.


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. No dad; she's

not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see

it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?



I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and

here
is why.


Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.


And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist. Feminism, and
your definition, are based on class warfare principles applied to gender
differences. Your dictionary definition proves my point. Feminists hate
Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural
order of human behavior.


So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)


While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a
classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won
the argument.


These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year

are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers.


And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.


Save the baby. BUT I am against putting up billboards all along the
Interstate Highway System to alert pregnant girls they can avoid parental
responsibility by dropping off unwanted babies. My point is still the
same - These laws don't work because a teen trying to hide a pregnancy with
also hide a child birth. Get it yet?


  #263  
Old October 12th 06, 03:50 AM 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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that
you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about
how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same
situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a
consequence of where that mean old man left his semen.
Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't
you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are
after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of
course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the
theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all
post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in
accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice,
all the consequences that follow from those choices should also
be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she
chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the
consequence is pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his
sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and
CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to
abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which
will most likely be the birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any
responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child
as well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her,
and from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that
follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on
top of all that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing
(or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think
this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's
still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities
toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life
of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also
should not be the bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other
parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the
rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no
rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having
the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the
default 50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If
Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If
mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30
% she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own
expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the
other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is
required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense,
it's the *other* parent's expense)

Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance
when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met,
why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't
want to?

Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children
on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole
lot more that's going to be said here.

I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more
than married parents are forced to provide, Moon.

Married parents are not required to work.

Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in
many cases are not required to provide medical attention.

Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism.

But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all
the rest!


No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't
think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are
required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do
all those things and would probably like more help from your children's
father.


I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that
you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of
married parents.


My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon!
And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Nice try, though.




  #264  
Old October 12th 06, 05:45 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Bob Whiteside wrote:

I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and

here
is why.

Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.


And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate
Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural
order of human behavior.


And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows
for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance
through control of the money.

It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism
you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)


While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a
classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won
the argument.


Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year

are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers.

And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?


[So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually
does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not
answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his
masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority
and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.]

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.


Save the baby. BUT ...


BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning
the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved
the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it
only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have
ended up dead in a dumpster.

I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies
dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your
masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those
ideas were enforced in the past.

You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you
want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism
quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult
questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male
superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows
through your many messages.

So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of
subjects:

I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance.

To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male
superiority and dominance through control of the money.

To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the
irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility.

That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.

Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much.
  #265  
Old October 12th 06, 06:33 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


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

I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist,

and
here
is why.
Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.


And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists

hate
Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the

natural
order of human behavior.


And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows
for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance
through control of the money.

It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism
you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me

to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)


While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a
classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you

won
the argument.


Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year

are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die

by
their birth mothers.
And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?


[So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually
does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not
answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his
masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority
and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.]

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster.

Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.


Save the baby. BUT ...


BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning
the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved
the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it
only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have
ended up dead in a dumpster.

I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies
dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your
masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those
ideas were enforced in the past.

You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you
want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism
quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult
questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male
superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows
through your many messages.

So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of
subjects:

I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and

dominance.

To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male
superiority and dominance through control of the money.

To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the
irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility.

That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.

Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much.


Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you
responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this
just PMS? What a freakin' loony!


  #266  
Old October 12th 06, 07:28 AM 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..

You just want it all your way, don't you, Lady? You married (or didn't
marry and procreated with) the wrong man, now everything with a penis is
wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe it is time that you took a serious look at
yourself and the reasons behind your diatribes against men. Stop blaming
them for your self-created problems. Call your community mental health
facility and get an appointment soon--before you go postal and really do
some damage!

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

I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and

here
is why.
Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.


And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists
hate
Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the
natural
order of human behavior.


And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for
inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through
control of the money.

It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism
you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)


While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a
classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you
won
the argument.


Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year

are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers.
And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?


[So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does,
conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them
because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist
world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and
dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.]

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.


Save the baby. BUT ...


BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the
program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the
baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only
saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up
dead in a dumpster.

I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies
dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your
masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those
ideas were enforced in the past.

You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want
inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted
above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions
lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male
superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows
through your many messages.

So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of
subjects:

I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and
dominance.

To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male
superiority and dominance through control of the money.

To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the
irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility.

That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.

Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much.



  #267  
Old October 12th 06, 07:30 AM 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..


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

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

I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist,

and
here
is why.
Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.

And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists

hate
Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the

natural
order of human behavior.


And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows
for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance
through control of the money.

It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism
you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon
women.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me

to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists
are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)

While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a
classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you

won
the argument.


Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation.

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per
year
are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die

by
their birth mothers.
And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?


[So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually
does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not
answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his
masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority
and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.]

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster.

Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.

Save the baby. BUT ...


BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning
the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved
the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it
only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have
ended up dead in a dumpster.

I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies
dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your
masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those
ideas were enforced in the past.

You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you
want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism
quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult
questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male
superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows
through your many messages.

So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of
subjects:

I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and

dominance.

To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male
superiority and dominance through control of the money.

To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the
irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility.

That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.

Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much.


Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then
you
responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this
just PMS? What a freakin' loony!


I'll say! Maybe she sould get out into the real world and get a job. She
spends far too much time mulling over how she was done wrong by a man who
was more adolescent than man. I guess she thinks she is owed by every man
alive now. Geesh!




  #268  
Old October 12th 06, 11:16 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning
that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint
about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the
same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act
is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen.
Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't
you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are
after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue.

==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of
course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the
theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."

It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all
post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in
accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice,
all the consequences that follow from those choices should
also be hers.


So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she
chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the
consequence is pregnancy.

But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his
sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and
CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to
abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of
which will most likely be the birth of a child...

And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from
any responsibility for or to the child?
Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child
as well?


Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her,
and from those choices will spring consequences in turn.

Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER
choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that
follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and,
on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional...

So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing
(or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think
this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's
still his child?

When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his
responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities
toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life
of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also
should not be the bankroll.

So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other
parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the
rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no
rights?

Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having
the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But
the default 50/50 is the key.

Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away.
If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent.
If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other
30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their
own expenses.

"No rights to walk away".

How do you propose stopping someone from doing so?

"they pay for their own expenses"

So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the
other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either.
They both insist it's the other's expense.

So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is
required to provide health insurance?
(or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense,
it's the *other* parent's expense)

Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of
marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance
when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met,
why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't
want to?

Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children
on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole
lot more that's going to be said here.

I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more
than married parents are forced to provide, Moon.

Married parents are not required to work.

Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in
many cases are not required to provide medical attention.

Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism.

But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and
all the rest!

No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't
think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are
required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to
do all those things and would probably like more help from your
children's father.


I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that
you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of
married parents.


My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon!
And I don't require her to do anything in any case.


Well, you've sure complained about it enough

Nice try, though.






  #269  
Old October 12th 06, 12:10 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote
............................

And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S
responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you
keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how
WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation.
Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of
where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm
just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the
woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy
becomes an issue.



==
A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.)


I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme
of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence."



It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all
post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance
with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the
consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers.



I am aware of what Canada's notion of "natural justice". I know that
it allows Canada to declare age discrimination to be legal even
though it is unconstitutional; see McKinney v. University of Guelph.
So if you expect me to buy any argument based on that concept, you
are swimming upstream.

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of
informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither
and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those
consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in
financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always
about the money with y'all.



Yes, it's easier to cut the article and make some unrelated,
self-serving comments when you can't rebut the points made...



I did rebut your crap, in whole. More efficient to do it that way than
in pieces, and the result is the same.


No, acvtually you didn't even *address* the points I made let alone
"rebut" them...you snipped the article, inserted some self-serving
statements and declared victory...nice try (well not even that nice a
try actually)...and definitely no cigar.

All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make
when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible is
so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line with
you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny fairness and
equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate selfishness.

Disgusting.


What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no
knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes
governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to
lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the experiences
that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting...

....Ken
  #270  
Old October 12th 06, 12:32 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Fred wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:


Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something,


You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example
from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman
named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of
Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay
income tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is
for the support of the child...even though she gets to spend it
however she likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it
for the support of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck
down that portion of the Income Tax Act.


Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is
legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is
unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada.
See McKinney v. University of Guelph.



Apparently *ANOTHER* case where you are shooting your mouth off without
knowing what you are talking about...do you even *know* what the SCofC
reference was about or even *read* the decision ? I ask because if you
had you either are blatantly misrepresenting the case or are just plain
stupid as a bag of hammers.
Just to explain it to you and those others who might be looking in a nd
laughing at you...the McKinney V University of Guelph wasn't about
forced retirement, though that was the cause of the SCofC reference, the
reference specifically asked the Court to resolve 5 constitutional
questions...mandatory retirement wasn't one of those since mandatory
retirement in the public sector in Canada *IS* illegal. The five
questions all boiled down to "Are universities, defacto, part of the
government or are they private sector institutions" if the court had
found that they were part of the government, their mandatory retirement
policies would have been illegal. The Court ruled on all five points
that universities ARE NOT part of the government and, in exactly the
same way as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights DOES NOT apply to the
US private sector, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not
apply to Universities in Canada...

So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and
subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.


This from a man who lives in a nation where everyday millions of men
and children have their rights under their own Constitution and Bill of
Rights violated in favour of women...humm

or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give
a damn about the welfare of the child.



Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the
children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial
parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child.
My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of
going to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was
using the CS money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her
latest "boy toy" n a two week southern vacation each year. She so
poorly supported the boys that he had to buy their clothes and pay for
their school supplies out of his own pocket even though these expenses
were supposed to have been covered by the CS. When he presented his
irrefutable evidence, the judge curtly told him it was none of the
courts (or his !) business HOW his ex-wife spent the CS money because
it was HERS !

Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice
"theory" of parental responsibility ?


They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in
which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after
all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of
responsibility and accountability.


Ah, so what you're saying is that it's OK to discriminate against men
because that's the "context" in which we live...humm.
I agree that this is the context in which we live, the difference
between you and I is that *I* don't agree that it is right, just or even
constitutional and want to see it changed while you are content to live
with your chains...

In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional
acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of
responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been
corrupted by that same court.


You really should do some research on the topics you wish to spout off
about before you (figuratively) open your mouth and insert you
foot...again...there aren't many on these NGs who suffer fools gladly,
except perhaps for the comic relief...which, I must say, you supply a
plenty... :-)

....Ken
 




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 11:27 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.