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 |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
Ben wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:51 pm, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: And compulsory DNA testing is what courts do all the time. Not in these circumstances, and not for men demanding pregnant women take them because they suspect they might be the father. ----------------------------- The courts require them, dumbass. Not under safe haven laws. And not for adoptions. ---------------------------- Only if paternity is unclear. Safe haven laws allow parent(s) to abdicate their responsibilities voluntary. --------------- No, only to shift custody temporarily for the child's welfare. Custody is intended to be permanent unless the parent decides to return within the proscribed time frame. -------------------------- Yup. But they still get a bill for support until formal adoption. Even parents who have kids taken from them temporarily and placed in foster homes are billed for the foster home care!! Nope. ------------------ Yup. I know several guys who get bills like that! No. The child ALSO has the right of support that CANNOT BE abrogated without a court decree! We're talking about adoption and safe haven. You can keep trying to move the goalposts, but I'll just put them back. ------------------------ Your comment is intentional nonsense you saw work someplace else and that you are imitating. You posturing ****. You need a course in government. I assure you, there's nothing about government that you're capable of teaching me. ----------------------- Then you should know better. All you've succeeded in doing is to make most of us realize that you're lying like a fish. You're posturing disingenuously again. I am not--I'm freely insulting you. --------------- You're not able. According to surveys I've read, most abortion supporters are against partial birth abortion, also known as infanticide. -------------------------- Nope, they aren't. And it isn't. Why? Because it is almost wholly and ONLY used to remove an anencephalic fetus, one that developed with little or no BRAIN, and in which the risk of delivery to the mother is too great for medically justified normal birth. It is a total MYTH that ANY women seeking abortion seek this late-term procedure. It is ALWAYS suggested by physicians ONLY to prevent damage to the mother, because the skull of the fetus in those cases is often deformed and has sharpedges and deep depressions in it. it is better to extract the skull contents and then vaccuum it out with a suction hose and remove it in pieces with small forceps. I see you're not aware of any real research in this area, are you? Are you reading from a pamphlet, by any chance? --------------------------- Yes I am, and no I'm not. Why else would a majority of people worldwide understand this, yet you do not? You stated something you didn't actually even expect us to believe, that's the definition of disingenuity. American Heritage Dictionary: [] Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: *That's* the definition of disingenuous. As you can see, I was being insulting and sarcastic, not disingenuous. ----------------------- No, I don't talk to stupid people for long, meaning you had to know better than the **** you were promoting. Well, Steve, I'm afraid we've come to the end of our conversation. You're not intelligent or interesting, and you've committed the cardinal sin of not even being entertaining anymore. I'm not going to plonk you, because I never plonk, but I'm going to take Banty's advice and just ignore you now. Wipe the spittle from you lips and have a good life. --------------------- I do already. But I bet you'll **** up and talk crap again, and I'll jump your ass. Steve |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous?
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Ben wrote: On Jul 11, 12:06 pm, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Benwrote: On Jul 11, 10:17 am, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Safe Haven is for the CHILD'S safety, it does NOTHING to abrogate the mother's OR the father's economic responsibility!! This would be another inaccuracy. Safe haven laws in most states allow for an individual to drop a baby off at a designated safe site, no questions asked. Some states ask that the person at the site give the individual dropping the baby off an opportunity to leave some medical information, but this isn't mandatory. ------------------------ That's to encourage parental compliance for the child's safety. It in NO way ends the State's obligation to seek the child's right to support from its bio-parents, and when they do, a court will attach their wages! No, safe haven means just that, that the parent(s) can drop the child off and walk away unidentified and unencumbered. In fact, in some states, any adult can do it. ---------------------------- So do you think that intelligent congressbeings and assemblypersons intended that they lose their children just because their spouse goes crazy one day and gives them away to their local firehouse??? That's not what I think, but that's because I know what safe haven laws are. Pity you can't say the same. ---------------------- No, you only imagine that you do. Your ignorance is obvious to anyone even slightly experienced with the law. Don't be an ass! Of course any adult can do that, but it neither ends parental obligation nor parental rights. Yes it does. They will restart if the parent changes his/her mind, but absent that, obligations and rights end. ----------------------- Nope, parental rights and obligations are equal for both parents, and your twisted notion would suggest a father could give away his child because he decided he didn't want to get divorced and have to pay child-support!! In fact that guarantee is the HEART of all such laws! No it's not. -------------------------- Of course it is, the heart of the legislation is that a parent who surrenders a child because the child might be in danger with them is guaranteed to be able to get the child back in a reasonable period of time. When they do they will be handed a bill for support during that period. If they don't come get them, then they will be billed for support anyway, but the child will be fostered and/or adopted. The mother or father can GET THE CHILD BACK LATER! If done within a fairly restricted time frame (this can vary according to the jurisdiction). ----------------------- Yup. But the obligation for support remains until adoption. It is for the protection of the CHILD AT THAT TIME, So far, this is the closest you've been to being accurate. it does NOT magically abrogate parental rights! You're right, there's no magic involved. It's all statutes and legalities. ------------------------ Ain't any. You're confabulating. Now, if the mother and father don't have to be identified, just how would you enforce their economic responsibility? And, wouldn't safe haven laws that compel identification in order to compel responsibility be self-defeating? ---------------------------- Gee, how do we find other deadbeat criminals? That wasn't the question, now, was it? ----------------- YOU seemed to think so. The question was, if they, by law, don't have to be identified, how would you enforce their responsibility. IOW, the state is prohibited by law from trying to identify them. ---------------------------------- Mope. Nonsense. In fact it is REQUIRED by family court when a second parent must be contacted. You're confusing safe haven laws with adoption laws. --------------------------- No. They are unrelated, and the obligation of support continues even if the child is Safe-Haven-ed. And adoption requires your support continue EVEN WHILE the child is fostered in the new home UNTIL FORMAL ADOPTION!! I don't know if this is true or not, but given your general level of accuracy, I'd have my doubts. ---------------------------- You mean given YOUR general level of stupidity... Witty banter--who'd have thought it from you? --------------------- You started it. I see you're as adept at recognizing sarcasm as you are the holes in your arguments. ------------------------ No, I usually just ignore it as an effort at distraction. AND no child CAN be adopted out without the father's permission or refusal to seek paternity rights! Children are adopted out all the time without the father being identified or giving permission. ---------------------- Only if they choose not to seek their parental rights or not to have standing before the court. So that doesn't count. So you stated no child can be adopted out wither paternal permission, I said they are all the time, and you immediately agree. Okay. ----------------------------- Nope. You're a liar. The words are right there. ---------------------------- Nope. You're a liar. No parent that expresses interest is denied their parental rights merely because their wife went nuts one day and gave their children to some nice firemen. Moving the goalposts again, I see. --------------------- Nope, different circumstance to clarify, you posturing disingenuous little ****head! The mother doesn't have to identify him. She can claim she slept with multiple men and doesn't know who the father is. She can claim she had sex with an anonymous guy at a party. The state makes an incompetent effort to locate the father and, failing to do so within a certain time frame, proceeds with the adoption. --------------------------- Yes, a father has the obligation to know where his children are. If he does not, then his claim to fit parenthood is not well believed, but that is the same as it is for women. Stupid statement. What if she concealed the pregnancy from him? What if she lied about him being the father? Are you now advocating stalking and compulsory DNA testing? -------------------------------------- It is simple to find out if someone is pregnant without stalking. Not if they don't want you to know. ----------------------- Nonsense, detectives have no trouble at all. And compulsory DNA testing is what courts do all the time. Not in these circumstances, and not for men demanding pregnant women take them because they suspect they might be the father. ----------------------------- The courts require them, dumbass. And they are the DNA of the child, not the mother. Not unless there is something peculiar. Why do you LIE this way????????? I suppose when you're badly misinformed, the truth would seem to be a lie. ------------------------------ Or a LIE would. It is a LIE that juvenile and family courts do not seek to indentify fathers for support of their children, and that they seek this as an advocate fro the CHILD'S rights, or that this obligation magically ends with changes in custody! Family courts do indeed seek to establish paternity to award support. But that has nothing to do with safe haven laws or forbidding adoption with paternal permission. ------------------------------- Safe Haven laws do NOT deprive people of their parental rights, or they would never have been passed. Safe haven laws allow parent(s) to abdicate their responsibilities voluntary. --------------- No, only to shift custody temporarily for the child's welfare. The are not allowed to discharge their obligation to the child except by court adoption decree. After a given time frame, they can't get them back. --------------------- But they are still billed for support till adoption occurs. Even parents who have kids taken from them temporarily and placed in foster homes are billed for the foster home care!! I've truly dumbed this down enough for even you to understand. ---------------------- Don't posture, you ****head. Anyway, it would be a denial of due process and illegal under the 4th Amendment without a court's unfit parent decree terminating their parental rights! If it was involuntary. ---------------------------- No. The child ALSO has the right of support that CANNOT BE abrogated without a court decree! No mere law can deprive a person of that without amending the constitution. (Slapping forehead) What a maroon. ------------------------------- You posturing ****. You need a course in government. I don't know about "authorized", but I would agree that a blind eye was turned towards the practice of infanticide. ---------------------- No, it is not merely authorized in island cultures it is required by their tribal law to control population! And Roman infanticide was based on the Roman legality known as PaterFamilias, meaning that the father, as head of his family, had the right to take the life of anyone in his family, especially defective or unwanted infants. Custom was that the father had to formally accept the child into the family in three days or else kill it. But that was just custom, the law said he could kill any of his household. Ah. Well, as I said, I wasn't sure about this. No newborn is a BEING, and is ethically eligible to be terminated for social ends. So you think it's all right to kill a newborn for "social ends"? You're a ****ing nut. --------------------------------- The RIGHT of a person to their body is NOT some picayune "social end". "Social end" was your term, not mine. I'm saying the newborn isn't yet a BEING. Then you're saying something wrong. Even advocates of partial birth infanticide generally don't try and claim that once the baby is out of the womb, it's still not a person. --------------------------------- Sure they do, if they consider the issue logically. Perhaps the most rabid, wide-eyed idealogues--you appear to be their king (or queen, whatever). ------------------------- You're posturing disingenuously again. The abortion advocate regards assertions that the newborn is magically a person only moments after it was a fetus realize that such a notion would be arbitrary poppycock! According to surveys I've read, most abortion supporters are against partial birth abortion, also known as infanticide. -------------------------- Nope, they aren't. And it isn't. Why? Because it is almost wholly and ONLY used to remove an anencephalic fetus, one that developed with little or no BRAIN, and in which the risk of delivery to the mother is too great for medically justified normal birth. It is a total MYTH that ANY women seeking abortion seek this late-term procedure. It is ALWAYS suggested by physicians ONLY to prevent damage to the mother, because the skull of the fetus in those cases is often deformed and has sharpedges and deep depressions in it. it is better to extract the skull contents and then vaccuum it out with a suction hose and remove it in pieces with small forceps. But what society does about this form of property is completely the society's decision as ALL decisions about property are. If the society decides that the property, the newborn, is to be claimed by the other parent or the State, then so be it, and it should abrogate the right of economic support for whichever parents want out of it. Here's what you should do: You should recite in front of a mirror all the nonsense you write here and see if it sounds sane to you. Hopefully, it doesn't. ------------------- Don't be a disingenuous ass, I take offense! I wasn't being disingenuous, I was being insulting and sarcastic. -------------------- You stated something you didn't actually even expect us to believe, that's the definition of disingenuity. of course it makes sense to me, I was afraid of that. you ****-for-brains!! But the State will probably want to set a date after birth where the child has a right to continue and affirm its right to support by its parents. So the State will probably require that it be killed quickly, or after a specified time it will be taken by the other parent or the State and adopted out. I take back what I said about you being nuts--you're beyond that. ------------------------- Your impotent nonsense. and since it is no longer in the body of the woman , is it also OK for the father to kill this so called NON BEING. ---------------------- Only if she wants to give it up. It is her personal property, made of and by her body. Until it is several weeks old is is NOT a BEING, it is property! Steve Yep, you're nuts. --------------------- You're now spewing illogic. Nope, you just don't LIKE it, which doesn't make ME anything. You're right, I don't like the fact that, by your own words, you believe a baby is not a being. As to what that makes you...well, there are plenty of adjectives. ------------------ Why you glib little whore? Is this a question asking me something, or is this a statement that you've inadvertently tacked a question mark on to? ---------------- Typo, missed the bang. Steve |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
MCP wrote:
Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous? ------------------- What's that, and how did you first find out about it? Steve |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Father's importance no laughing matter
In article , R. Steve Walz says...
MCP wrote: Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous? ------------------- What's that, and how did you first find out about it? Steve Heh. Good one. Banty |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Father's importance no laughing matter | Fred Goodwin, CMA | General | 343 | July 14th 07 09:31 PM |
Matter of law? | spr | Child Support | 12 | April 16th 05 04:02 AM |
"Each Man, Woman And Child, No Matter What Color, No Matter What Race..." 3-22-84 | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | January 26th 05 02:22 AM |
My last post on this matter... | Jill | Pregnancy | 24 | February 5th 04 02:56 AM |
CP as torture? Could it just be a matter of degree? | Kane | Spanking | 8 | January 15th 04 04:02 PM |