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.

"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?

"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!

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

"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.

"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?

"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?