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 |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a village". Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint. So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal responsibility. Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with, if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying together to provide for them is more important than spending time with your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work have more sympathy for your kids than you. Bed, Made, Lie And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs. Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid personal responsibility. ROFLMAO! Ok, Moonie, just one point. Are you in favor of holding women to this same standard even though it would mean accepting responsibility for any unplanned pregnancy thereby outlawing abortion, abandonment and unilateral adoption AND the ability to keep the children along with the promise of C$ as income? I believe that both women and men should have abortion available. OK, this I gotta hear. How does a man get an abortion? Not what I said. I said they should both have it available. There ARE couples who decide that it's not the right time to have a child, and they jointly decide to terminate. If you are going to say that it should be available to both equally, should they ever need it, then you are just being ridiculous. And once again, that's not what I said. And that doesn't answer the question of a woman being able to decide NOT to be a mother, but a man NOT being able to decide NOT to be a father once a pregnancy occurs. IF a man must take full responsibility, why should a woman not have to? If the man can't figure out that the woman is the one who has the fetus inside her body, and therefore gets the ultimate choice, then he needs to go back to school and learn basic sex education. I believe that both men and women should have adoption available. You're still not answering the issue, Moon. A woman has a number of ways to keep from being a mother once a pregnancy takes place. Since she's the one with the fetus inside her body, who do you THINK should be deciding what happens to her body? If a man can beforced to take 18 years of responsibility for an act he willingly engaged in that resulted in pregnancy, why should a woman not be held to that same standard of responsibility? If she has and keeps the child, she is. Who do you think is taking care of that child? And again, if a man hasn't figured out where that fetus is growing, and/or can't figure out that the carrier of the fetus is going to have more say than the NONcarrier of the fetus, then he needs to go back to basic sex ed. Face it, Teach - if men are SO freaking moronic that they can't figure out that if she (whoever she is) gets pregnant, she's going to be the one to decide what happens with that pregnancy, then he's not responsible enough to be engaging in sex. I believe that both women and men have a responsibility to support their children. And how would you improve the system to make sure that this actually happens? I don't know - I never claimed to have all the answers. I believe in personal responsibility, and I know that I live this. Perhaps the answer is that people need to teach their children, from a young age, to take personal responsibility - it beats the HELL out of these men insisting they're victims because they had sex without considering ALL of the possible repercussions. So, no, I don't think abortion, adoption or child support should be outlawed. I believe that abandonment is just plain wrong, on the part of both men AND women. Anything I missed? Quite a bit, as shown above. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I missed something. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a village". Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint. So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal responsibility. Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with, if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying together to provide for them is more important than spending time with your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work have more sympathy for your kids than you. Bed, Made, Lie And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs. Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid personal responsibility. ROFLMAO! standing ovation The news yesterday was 40% of all child births are now to women who are not married. Actually, it was 37%. Thanks for being so precise. All it took was actually READING the news reports. I should have known the media reporting 4 out of 10 child birth's to unwed mothers really meant 37%. Would you agree the number exceeded 1.5 million children according to 99% of the birth certificates issued last year? I don't know. If that's what the reports actually said (rather than some sound bites), then that's the number. I remember the 37%. The point I am trying to make is - The increasing financial burden on the Clinton metaphorical "villagers" is being driven up by women having children out of wedlock. Her position is to overlook the individual responsibility issues and push the burden off onto society in general to manage. It's just more of her socialistic, big government mentality cloaked in the "for the children" mantra. That's quite a leap. If you had actually READ the articles, you might have noted where they pointed out that the largest group of unwed mothers was in the 20-29 year age group, and that one of the biggest reasons for this was that people were marrying later, or choosing to not marry at all. The mothers were not all welfare queens, nor looking to "push the burden off onto society in general to manage". They were, at least to some extent, merely women who chose to not marry their partners. BTW - Do you take Senator Clinton literally when she says it takes a village to raise children? No, though I tend to agree with the sentiment. We, as a community, are responsible for overseeing the children of the community. That's why my home is always open to my children's friends - and the other parents act similarly - this way, we all can rest easy that all of our children are being supervised, and to some extent, protected from harm. Since not many of us live in villages are we excluded? Why aren't you critical of Clinton for not being precise? |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in Thanks for being so precise. I should have known the media reporting 4 out of 10 child birth's to unwed mothers really meant 37%. Would you agree the number exceeded 1.5 million children according to 99% of the birth certificates issued last year? 1.5 Million, that's quite a cash cow for these enforcement agencies! |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Dale" wrote in message om... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in Thanks for being so precise. I should have known the media reporting 4 out of 10 child birth's to unwed mothers really meant 37%. Would you agree the number exceeded 1.5 million children according to 99% of the birth certificates issued last year? 1.5 Million, that's quite a cash cow for these enforcement agencies! Never married parents make up 1/3 of all CS cases. We also know each CS case has on average of 1.6 children. Some portion of the 1.5+ million mothers are going to get CS immediately. Trying to figure out the real number of new CS cases gets a little murky. It's probably close to 3+ million cases per year times 1.6 children or at least 4.8 million children per year being supported by CS. The cash cow for government continues to grow at an alarming rate. And the number of fathers being subjected to CS orders grows proportionally to the unwed mother birth rate plus the divorce/separation rate. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a village". Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint. So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal responsibility. Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with, if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying together to provide for them is more important than spending time with your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work have more sympathy for your kids than you. Bed, Made, Lie And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs. Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid personal responsibility. ROFLMAO! Ok, Moonie, just one point. Are you in favor of holding women to this same standard even though it would mean accepting responsibility for any unplanned pregnancy thereby outlawing abortion, abandonment and unilateral adoption AND the ability to keep the children along with the promise of C$ as income? I believe that both women and men should have abortion available. OK, this I gotta hear. How does a man get an abortion? Not what I said. I said they should both have it available. There ARE couples who decide that it's not the right time to have a child, and they jointly decide to terminate. If you are going to say that it should be available to both equally, should they ever need it, then you are just being ridiculous. And once again, that's not what I said. And that doesn't answer the question of a woman being able to decide NOT to be a mother, but a man NOT being able to decide NOT to be a father once a pregnancy occurs. IF a man must take full responsibility, why should a woman not have to? If the man can't figure out that the woman is the one who has the fetus inside her body, and therefore gets the ultimate choice, then he needs to go back to school and learn basic sex education. I knew you didn't really have an answer. Some things just never change. I believe that both men and women should have adoption available. You're still not answering the issue, Moon. A woman has a number of ways to keep from being a mother once a pregnancy takes place. Since she's the one with the fetus inside her body, who do you THINK should be deciding what happens to her body? BOTH paernts, if both parents are going to be responsible for the child when it is born. If a man can beforced to take 18 years of responsibility for an act he willingly engaged in that resulted in pregnancy, why should a woman not be held to that same standard of responsibility? If she has and keeps the child, she is. Who do you think is taking care of that child? Her caring for the child and him providing the $$$ is NOT the same as both being parents. And again, if a man hasn't figured out where that fetus is growing, and/or can't figure out that the carrier of the fetus is going to have more say than the NONcarrier of the fetus, then he needs to go back to basic sex ed. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Same old foolishness. Face it, Teach - if men are SO freaking moronic that they can't figure out that if she (whoever she is) gets pregnant, she's going to be the one to decide what happens with that pregnancy, then he's not responsible enough to be engaging in sex. Face it, Moon. If women are SO freaking moronic that they can't figure out that having sex can result in pregnancy, then she's not responsible enough to be engaging in sex. I believe that both women and men have a responsibility to support their children. And how would you improve the system to make sure that this actually happens? I don't know - I never claimed to have all the answers. I believe in personal responsibility, and I know that I live this. Perhaps the answer is that people need to teach their children, from a young age, to take personal responsibility - it beats the HELL out of these men insisting they're victims because they had sex without considering ALL of the possible repercussions. It also beats the hell out of all these women claiming that they are victims because they are raising children alone because they didn't have the sense to get to know the men well before they took off their panties and flopped back on a bed. Perhaps women might start considering the consequences for their actions if they got real consequences, too. And, no, raising a child is NOT a consequence. So, no, I don't think abortion, adoption or child support should be outlawed. I believe that abandonment is just plain wrong, on the part of both men AND women. Anything I missed? Quite a bit, as shown above. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I missed something. Your answers don't really answer the issues, though. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a village". Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint. So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal responsibility. Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with, if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying together to provide for them is more important than spending time with your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work have more sympathy for your kids than you. Bed, Made, Lie And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs. Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid personal responsibility. ROFLMAO! Ok, Moonie, just one point. Are you in favor of holding women to this same standard even though it would mean accepting responsibility for any unplanned pregnancy thereby outlawing abortion, abandonment and unilateral adoption AND the ability to keep the children along with the promise of C$ as income? I believe that both women and men should have abortion available. OK, this I gotta hear. How does a man get an abortion? Not what I said. I said they should both have it available. There ARE couples who decide that it's not the right time to have a child, and they jointly decide to terminate. Totally and absolutely, 100% wrong. Only the pregnant woman can decide that. If you are going to say that it should be available to both equally, should they ever need it, then you are just being ridiculous. And once again, that's not what I said. You didn't say anything of value, either. And that doesn't answer the question of a woman being able to decide NOT to be a mother, but a man NOT being able to decide NOT to be a father once a pregnancy occurs. IF a man must take full responsibility, why should a woman not have to? If the man can't figure out that the woman is the one who has the fetus inside her body, and therefore gets the ultimate choice, then he needs to go back to school and learn basic sex education. Aha, now we're getting to it. The mother gets pregnant (accidentally, of course; apparently hasn't figured out how that happens) but retains the rights to keep (along with any C$ she can get), abort, abandon or have adopted any children born. All this is while the father has the rights to .... nothing... unless conditionally granted by the mother. I believe that both men and women should have adoption available. You're still not answering the issue, Moon. A woman has a number of ways to keep from being a mother once a pregnancy takes place. Since she's the one with the fetus inside her body, who do you THINK should be deciding what happens to her body? But he's NOT pregnant and does not give birth but she maintains a hold on his wallet as if there was a physical attachment. If we are going to use physical attachment as the deciding factor in life, he should have the ability to have sex and never look back. If a man can beforced to take 18 years of responsibility for an act he willingly engaged in that resulted in pregnancy, why should a woman not be held to that same standard of responsibility? If she has and keeps the child, she is. Who do you think is taking care of that child? Often a caretaker. Never mind that it is her sole and unilateral choice, which feminists and sexists are unwilling to give to fathers. And again, if a man hasn't figured out where that fetus is growing, and/or can't figure out that the carrier of the fetus is going to have more say than the NONcarrier of the fetus, then he needs to go back to basic sex ed. He also gets the financial support even though not attached to either the mommie or baby. Face it, Teach - if men are SO freaking moronic that they can't figure out that if she (whoever she is) gets pregnant, she's going to be the one to decide what happens with that pregnancy, then he's not responsible enough to be engaging in sex. Which is why some women need abortion. Most women are intelligent and capable. Then there's you and your ilk. I believe that both women and men have a responsibility to support their children. And how would you improve the system to make sure that this actually happens? I don't know - I never claimed to have all the answers. I believe in personal responsibility, and I know that I live this. Perhaps, but you preach another message. You demand men be responsible when a pregnancy occurs and at the same time allow women several options you deny him. IMO, abortion is the irresposible result of an irresponsible act. YMMV. Perhaps the answer is that people need to teach their children, from a young age, to take personal responsibility - it beats the HELL out of these men insisting they're victims because they had sex without considering ALL of the possible repercussions. Still hammering at one of the two responsible parties, I see. You are such a hypocrite. So, no, I don't think abortion, adoption or child support should be outlawed. I believe that abandonment is just plain wrong, on the part of both men AND women. Anything I missed? Quite a bit, as shown above. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I missed something. So you still maintain the gender-feminist ideal in regards to procreation, abortion, birth, abandonment and adoption even though you tried to make it sound equal and fair for both men and women. Nothing new there. Phil #3 |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [snip] Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I missed something. Your answers don't really answer the issues, though. They do for a sexist. Phil #3 |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in It also beats the hell out of all these women claiming that they are victims because they are raising children alone because they didn't have the sense to get to know the men well before they took off their panties and flopped back on a bed. Perhaps women might start considering the consequences for their actions if they got real consequences, too. And, no, raising a child is NOT a consequence. Since immigration has pulled my authorization to work, the CS payments have ceased. I just got a heart wrenching letter from the single never married mother of my child after 8 years of no communication. She complains that she suffers from having to work in order to afford a place to stay for her and our child. She whines about being laid off a couple times and having to pound the pavement to find a new job, else she couldn't afford a place to rent. The biggest problem in her life right now is how is she going to afford a new car when her current one breaks down. Am I missing something here or is everyone in the country not in the same predicament? She works in health care and lives in co-op housing for $360/mth. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in I don't recall indicating in any way, shape or form that I had any intention of providing you, or anyone else in this forum, with *my* issues, to discuss. Yes, you are a person with many issues best left undiscussed! I'm here because, like for so many others, child support is an issue in my life, and in the lives of my children. Thought you had everything perfectly in control and properly budgeted, what can this forum possibly do for you to help with yrou life situation? |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in The cash cow for government continues to grow at an alarming rate. And the number of fathers being subjected to CS orders grows proportionally to the unwed mother birth rate plus the divorce/separation rate. The government can only control a problem while it only affects a small minority. Much like the illegal immigration problem, the issue has grown so huge that the government is forced to change it's policies to try resolve a good result for everyone. They can't afford to enforce the laws in place, and they can't legally process 12,000,000 immigrants as current legal immigrants are on a 7 to 10 year waiting list to get proper green cards. 400,000 temporary work visas are reserved each year for employers wanting to sponsor employees, but it takes two years to get that. Can't just grant 12,000,000 visas, how long would that take to process. Quite a pickle the government got itself into! Like wise, as CS cases grow by the millions, they can't threaten to throw everyone in prison as it's not financially feasable and would paralize the current penal system. The government can't afford to have all these good tax payers sitting in cells at their expense. People have to realize that a system cannot solve their personal problems. Women should get themselves a good paying career first before they start opening their legs to any poor beggar that come along. Hmmmn, maybe a dose of some old fashioned values might return? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |