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
  #291  
Old October 12th 06, 07:57 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..

Andre Lieven wrote:

"Phil" ) writes:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
se.net...

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:


"Fred" wrote
.........................


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.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]


...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away,
no questions asked?


IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.



Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.


Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the
details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage
of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody"
which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother...

....Ken
  #292  
Old October 12th 06, 08:09 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..


"Ken Chaddock" wrote
.............................

Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the
details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage of
such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody"
which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother...

==
Fathers who relinquish parental rights for adoption don't necessarily have
physical custody of the child.


  #293  
Old October 12th 06, 08:40 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Phil" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Phil" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

"Fred" wrote
.........................

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.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother
does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws
or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven"
laws with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop
off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what
some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare
office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings
attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her
her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences...
note that in all but two states this provision is NOT
available to the father and those two they *require* that he
provide identification...for future child suppor no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother."
Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than
a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk
away, no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it
will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers
are always in danger of later being brought into 'family court',
perhaps even decades later.


Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the
mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.

Andre

Absolutely true. I was intimating that even if "dad" had received
permission from "mom" to drop the baby off, she can still change her
mind, retrieve the baby and sue for child support from the 'drop-off
dad'.


Exactly. In spite of the fact that this area is neither biological
to women, nor medical to women, thus leaving no good reason why it
should ONLY be offered to women, it is mere misandrous sexism.

No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies
to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission.


Indeed.

Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval.


Exactly. Only when a man is allowed to sign a legal form by which
he revokes all of his legal rights and responsibilities to a child,
this area of law will stay misandrously sexist.

Andre

  #294  
Old October 12th 06, 11:08 PM 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
...

"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


About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his
daughter. You are wrong.


And, once again, you misrepresent my words.

You have complained that your stepdaughter's mother doesn't work.
You have complained that she is an alcoholic.
You have complained that her alcoholism is recognized by the medical
community as a disability, and, as such, entitles her to disability
benefits.

You have complained about these things mightly, and at great length.

I have complained about the system that tried to
stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for
a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages
were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that
I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've
certainly complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one
penny of her own children's support. But I've never complained about his
supporting his own daughter. Wrong again, Moon.


I never stated that your complaints were about your husband supporting his
own daughter. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.

Big surprise there.





  #295  
Old October 13th 06, 03:13 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
marika
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

Andre Lieven wrote:


Exactly. In spite of the fact that this area is neither biological
to women, nor medical to women, thus leaving no good reason why it
should ONLY be offered to women, it is mere misandrous sexism.

No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies
to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission.


Indeed.

Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval.


Exactly. Only when a man is allowed to sign a legal form by which
he revokes all of his legal rights and responsibilities to a child,
this area of law will stay misandrously sexist.



did yu guys ever watch Family Law. I remember this one episode where

what the atty did here was just plain illegal, and i kept screeching
about it
through the whole ep
the child is not competent to testify
the child should not have been called under any circumstances
that the child was called wo consulting parents, that is enough to
suspend the
license of the atty

mk5000

"all the covers that i see are different from the books i read
everything is crumbling around me
why does everything cost so much money?
could somebody please help out my family?:--


Viva La Persistence Kimya Dawson
Andre


  #296  
Old October 13th 06, 03:20 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..

Ken Chaddock wrote:

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, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have
a reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We
will simply have to agree to disagree.

Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to
enforce your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of
the money. That's all there is to it. And I say that with all due
consideration of you being in Canada, where discrimination based on
whatever is only a Supreme Court of Canada decision away. And if only
the court would discriminate in your favor, I doubt you'd have any
problem with it. But, being a resourceful fellow, you have gone for the
masculinist tactic of using the irresponsible behavior of others to
justify being irresponsible in turn.

When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a
dumpster rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male
superiority and dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss.
That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this
conversation.

[this time I'll get the name right ... ]

Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much.
  #297  
Old October 13th 06, 03:30 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..


"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
...

"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


About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting
his daughter. You are wrong.


And, once again, you misrepresent my words.

You have complained that your stepdaughter's mother doesn't work.
You have complained that she is an alcoholic.
You have complained that her alcoholism is recognized by the medical
community as a disability, and, as such, entitles her to disability
benefits.

You have complained about these things mightly, and at great length.

I have complained about the system that tried to
stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest
for a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any*
arrearages were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've
complained that I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is
paid for. I've certainly complained that the woman is not held
accountable for even one penny of her own children's support. But I've
never complained about his supporting his own daughter. Wrong again,
Moon.


I never stated that your complaints were about your husband supporting his
own daughter. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said.

Big surprise there.


Tap-tap-tappity, tap-tap-tappity, round and round she goes folks. Look at
Moonie dance! chuckle


  #298  
Old October 13th 06, 04:38 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..


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

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, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have a
reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We will
simply have to agree to disagree.

Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to enforce
your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of the money.
That's all there is to it. And I say that with all due consideration of
you being in Canada, where discrimination based on whatever is only a
Supreme Court of Canada decision away. And if only the court would
discriminate in your favor, I doubt you'd have any problem with it. But,
being a resourceful fellow, you have gone for the masculinist tactic of
using the irresponsible behavior of others to justify being irresponsible
in turn.

When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a dumpster
rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male superiority and
dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss. That being said, I
can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation.

Translation: Of I don't get more, then it isn't equal. chuckle Try not
to be too greedy, Freddi.


  #299  
Old October 13th 06, 09:53 AM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Golden One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Things to think of before you get married again..


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

"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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
.. .

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
c-kc.rr.com...

"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



About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting
his daughter. You are wrong. I have complained about the system that
tried to stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and
interest for a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any*
arrearages were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've
complained that I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is
paid for. I've certainly complained that the woman is not held
accountable for even one penny of her own children's support. But I've
never complained about his supporting his own daughter. Wrong again,
Moon.


If Parg/Hyerdahl were here she be *convinced* that you are a man...just
because you believe in fairness and justice and equality...

...Ken


She already does, and has accused both Teachrmama and Gini. See threads in
soc.men. ..Oh and of course "cockpuppets". Sigh... so preDICtable teehe.

Cheers

JB



  #300  
Old October 13th 06, 01:06 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:
As before, let's get right to the nub of it:

Phil wrote:

When speaking of custody or child $upport, "responsibility" is the
same as money. Primarily, fathers have a "responsibility" for child
$upport but the mother does not have an equal "responsibility". As a
matter of course, fathers pay money to the mothers but mothers do not
have to spend it on the children as long as they are minimally cared
for (using the fact that nearly all custodial parents are mothers).
IOW, she has less "responsibility" to the same children while his sole
"responsibility" is $$$.



There you go again. To you, it's all about the money.

"responsibility ... : moral, legal, or mental accountability"

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...responsibility


Still, you have helped to make my point that, at the end of the day,
this is all about money. Not moral accountability. Not informed
consent. Not the welfare of the child. Money. And specifically
evading the payment of money when one is both morally and legally
accountable to do so.



Legally, yes. Morally, hell no.



So after all this, you do agree that it's all about the money, to the
point that you will evade your moral accountability for contributing to
the pregnancy, and even your moral accountability to the child who
carries your DNA.

That's disgusting.


No more "disgusting" Fredrica, than a woman who CHOOSES to just get rid
of her "little problem"...and, you know, I don't think abortion is
disgusting at all...I've been actively pro-choice for over 27 years
now...the difference is that *I* (and a lot of other pro-choice people I
might add) think "choice" is a valid expectation for BOTH men and
women. You see Fredrica, it's all about accountability. Who is
responsible for what. In a consensual situation, the man and a woman,
together, are responsible for the pregnancy, however, THAT is as far as
the man's responsible extends BECAUSE the direct casual link between
pregnancy and child birth is severed by the woman's SOLE and SOVEREIGN
right to CHOSE whether she will allow the pregnancy to continue OR NOT.
Some call this a "burden", it's not, it's a choice AND a remedy that is
extended to women. As, Karen DeCrow, the President of the National
Organization of Women said in 1979:

"If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should]
have that right too.
There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending
of paternity suits for men.
Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would
only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."

and:

"Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision
to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of
support.
Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent Decisions
about their lives should not expect men to finance their choices."

This was about the time *I* became involved with pro-choice because I
"though" I was working for a worthwhile, egalitarian cause.
Radical feminists (who, BTW, DO NOT conform to the definition you
posted yesterday) have turned feminism and organizations like NOW around
180 degree, away form working for equality and pursuing egalitarian
goals, into organizations that seeks special rights and privileges for
women and seeks to demonize, discredit and disadvantage men, legally,
financially and in their own families as a primary method of obtaining
those special rights and privileges.

....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 11:29 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.