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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Irrelevant. My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. Impossible. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple. This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing! Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever get any. I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come. Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane people. And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts! The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them, Phil? I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options. There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER! If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for their own choices! Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Irrelevant. My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. Impossible. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple. This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing! No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever get any. I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come. Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane people. And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts! It can't last forever..... The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them, Phil? I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options. There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER! You seem to like the idea of being able to sow your seed whereever you choose with never a thought as to what happens after that. You sound like a totally irresponsible, uncaring person. If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for their own choices! Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth. You come across as a bitter, angry person, Chris. Oh, well..... |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message snip All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much pain today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in reverse. If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL responsibility is removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed. ============================ What on earth are you talking about? The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice. ================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either. =========================== What rights are you referring to? Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire rights, no? ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only. So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad, Phil. Argumentum ad misericordiam. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for. Add to that, even if he wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income. Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those children themselves? That depends on how the contract is written. The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable. Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it? YES, it is! That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Yet the principle is the same. Not at all. Because? My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours alone. Not at all true, Phil. Perhaps on YOUR planet. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be. People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world. Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal. His claim is true! Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU. NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together. On YOUR planet, that may be. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice deserves unilateral responsibilty. Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women, marry them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come along, get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women doing you WANT men to be able to do. Women get women pregnant? I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any children. Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does he have any right. Is that truly how you want things to be? This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to my sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a stranger that had the responsibility to pay his mother. And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance and fairness. A concept FOREIGN to you. I could not legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no authority over his environment, religion, association with other children, vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody "agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a set and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It was all very typical. Where was MY decision to be a father? That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed. Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever get any. I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come. I hope you're right. Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced, 2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years. I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less damaging to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh? The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them, Phil? I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options. There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for their own choices! Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the children from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree. The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change. Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke. Uhuh. The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their industry that they will shed their blood in doing so. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Irrelevant. My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. Impossible. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple. This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing! No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle? Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever get any. I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come. Not so long as the "child support" industry is controlled by insane people. And guess what, that is precisely the kind of folks it attracts! It can't last forever..... Neither can the sun. The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them, Phil? I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options. There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. Nonsense. There should not be a money judgement, EVER! You seem to like the idea of being able to sow your seed whereever you choose with never a thought as to what happens after that. You sound like a totally irresponsible, uncaring person. Ad hominem. Care to contribute to the discussion? If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for their own choices! Except, of course, when it comes to the choice of giving birth. You come across as a bitter, angry person, Chris. Oh, well..... Ad hominem. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free will to be a parent. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights, you accept the responsibilities. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only. So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad, Phil. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for. Add to that, even if he wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income. Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those children themselves? That depends on how the contract is written. Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should bear the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what you write. The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable. Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it? YES, it is! For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris. Who cannot even begin to see that he is just as biased in favor of men as the feminists he dplores are in fovor of women. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Yet the principle is the same. Not at all. Because? A child is a human being, Chris. Or has your cynicism taken you so far down that you equate a house to a human being? My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours alone. Not at all true, Phil. Perhaps on YOUR planet. I know you always need to believe that women are out to rob every man they can of everything they can get. But not all of us choose to live in your sad little world, Chris. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be. People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are still decent, caring people in this world. Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal. His claim is true! Of course, in your eyes it is irrelevant, Chris. It does not fit the little world you have constructed for yourself. No man can ever choose to have children--he always has to be cheated by a conniving woman--which is the only kind of woman there is, right? Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU. NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together. On YOUR planet, that may be. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice deserves unilateral responsibilty. Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women, marry them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come along, get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women doing you WANT men to be able to do. Women get women pregnant? I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any children. Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does he have any right. chuckle Sad, sad little man....... Is that truly how you want things to be? This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to my sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a stranger that had the responsibility to pay his mother. And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance and fairness. A concept FOREIGN to you. That is what you need to believe so you can tar all women with the same brush. You are as bad as the feminists you so deplore. I could not legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no authority over his environment, religion, association with other children, vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody "agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a set and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It was all very typical. Where was MY decision to be a father? That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed. Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever get any. I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come. I hope you're right. Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced, 2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years. I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less damaging to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh? chuckle Leave it to poor, sad little Chris to find a negative reason for a positive statistic. The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that responsibility. But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them, Phil? I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options. There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for their own choices! Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the children from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree. The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change. Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke. Uhuh. The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their industry that they will shed their blood in doing so. And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in family court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear absolutely no responsibility for any children you might help produce. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Irrelevant. My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. Impossible. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple. This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing! No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle? You don't want to be enlightened, Chris. You want to change the current darkness that you hate for darkness more to your liking. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message snip All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much pain today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in reverse. If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL responsibility is removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed. ============================ What on earth are you talking about? The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice. ================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either. =========================== What rights are you referring to? Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire rights, no? ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find that deplorable. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free will to be a parent. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights, you accept the responsibilities. I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have no responsibilities--that it should all be his choice. I vehemently disagree with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at any time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 08:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |