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 |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Andre Lieven wrote:
"Phil" ) writes: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message se.net... Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ......................... I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always about the money with y'all. It's disgusting, really. == Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff? What's "baby dropoff"? [sanctimony deleted] ...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress. All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide identification...for future child support no doubt... If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read yourself... Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose. The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse. How about you? So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away, no questions asked? IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the expenses of the baby, including arrearages. In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps even decades later. Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed. Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother, because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy. In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the new born status that such drop offs are limited to. Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody" which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother... ....Ken |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Ken Chaddock" wrote ............................. Yes, Andre, you've hit upon the obvious (to us perhaps) "devil in the details"...the man is virtually *never* in a position to take advantage of such laws and even if he is there is that pesky question of "custody" which, at birth, generally defaults to the mother... == Fathers who relinquish parental rights for adoption don't necessarily have physical custody of the child. |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Phil" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message ... "Phil" ) writes: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message . net... Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ......................... I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always about the money with y'all. It's disgusting, really. == Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff? What's "baby dropoff"? [sanctimony deleted] ...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress. All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences... note that in all but two states this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide identification...for future child suppor no doubt... If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read yourself... Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose. The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse. How about you? So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away, no questions asked? IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the expenses of the baby, including arrearages. In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps even decades later. Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed. Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother, because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy. In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the new born status that such drop offs are limited to. Andre Absolutely true. I was intimating that even if "dad" had received permission from "mom" to drop the baby off, she can still change her mind, retrieve the baby and sue for child support from the 'drop-off dad'. Exactly. In spite of the fact that this area is neither biological to women, nor medical to women, thus leaving no good reason why it should ONLY be offered to women, it is mere misandrous sexism. No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission. Indeed. Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval. Exactly. Only when a man is allowed to sign a legal form by which he revokes all of his legal rights and responsibilities to a child, this area of law will stay misandrously sexist. Andre |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Well, you've sure complained about it enough About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his daughter. You are wrong. And, once again, you misrepresent my words. You have complained that your stepdaughter's mother doesn't work. You have complained that she is an alcoholic. You have complained that her alcoholism is recognized by the medical community as a disability, and, as such, entitles her to disability benefits. You have complained about these things mightly, and at great length. I have complained about the system that tried to stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've certainly complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one penny of her own children's support. But I've never complained about his supporting his own daughter. Wrong again, Moon. I never stated that your complaints were about your husband supporting his own daughter. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said. Big surprise there. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Andre Lieven wrote:
Exactly. In spite of the fact that this area is neither biological to women, nor medical to women, thus leaving no good reason why it should ONLY be offered to women, it is mere misandrous sexism. No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission. Indeed. Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval. Exactly. Only when a man is allowed to sign a legal form by which he revokes all of his legal rights and responsibilities to a child, this area of law will stay misandrously sexist. did yu guys ever watch Family Law. I remember this one episode where what the atty did here was just plain illegal, and i kept screeching about it through the whole ep the child is not competent to testify the child should not have been called under any circumstances that the child was called wo consulting parents, that is enough to suspend the license of the atty mk5000 "all the covers that i see are different from the books i read everything is crumbling around me why does everything cost so much money? could somebody please help out my family?:-- Viva La Persistence Kimya Dawson Andre |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ken Chaddock wrote:
All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible is so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line with you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny fairness and equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate selfishness. Disgusting. What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the experiences that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting... Ken, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to enforce your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of the money. That's all there is to it. And I say that with all due consideration of you being in Canada, where discrimination based on whatever is only a Supreme Court of Canada decision away. And if only the court would discriminate in your favor, I doubt you'd have any problem with it. But, being a resourceful fellow, you have gone for the masculinist tactic of using the irresponsible behavior of others to justify being irresponsible in turn. When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a dumpster rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male superiority and dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. [this time I'll get the name right ... ] Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Well, you've sure complained about it enough About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his daughter. You are wrong. And, once again, you misrepresent my words. You have complained that your stepdaughter's mother doesn't work. You have complained that she is an alcoholic. You have complained that her alcoholism is recognized by the medical community as a disability, and, as such, entitles her to disability benefits. You have complained about these things mightly, and at great length. I have complained about the system that tried to stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've certainly complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one penny of her own children's support. But I've never complained about his supporting his own daughter. Wrong again, Moon. I never stated that your complaints were about your husband supporting his own daughter. Once again, you misrepresent what I've said. Big surprise there. Tap-tap-tappity, tap-tap-tappity, round and round she goes folks. Look at Moonie dance! chuckle |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Ken Chaddock wrote: All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible is so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line with you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny fairness and equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate selfishness. Disgusting. What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the experiences that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting... Ken, I have concluded that it is no longer productive to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with you and your masculinist colleagues. We will simply have to agree to disagree. Y'all claim that you want equality. Not so. What y'all want is to enforce your ideas of male superiority and dominance through control of the money. That's all there is to it. And I say that with all due consideration of you being in Canada, where discrimination based on whatever is only a Supreme Court of Canada decision away. And if only the court would discriminate in your favor, I doubt you'd have any problem with it. But, being a resourceful fellow, you have gone for the masculinist tactic of using the irresponsible behavior of others to justify being irresponsible in turn. When you side with a position that prefers seeing babies die in a dumpster rather than surrender even a scintilla of masculinist male superiority and dominance, there's simply nothing further to discuss. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Translation: Of I don't get more, then it isn't equal. chuckle Try not to be too greedy, Freddi. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:B9wXg.11367$P7.9699@edtnps90... teachrmama wrote: "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message .. . "Moon Shyne" wrote in message c-kc.rr.com... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82.. . Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Well, you've sure complained about it enough About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his daughter. You are wrong. I have complained about the system that tried to stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for a child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages were due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that I KNOW the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've certainly complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one penny of her own children's support. But I've never complained about his supporting his own daughter. Wrong again, Moon. If Parg/Hyerdahl were here she be *convinced* that you are a man...just because you believe in fairness and justice and equality... ...Ken She already does, and has accused both Teachrmama and Gini. See threads in soc.men. ..Oh and of course "cockpuppets". Sigh... so preDICtable teehe. Cheers JB |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote:
As before, let's get right to the nub of it: Phil wrote: When speaking of custody or child $upport, "responsibility" is the same as money. Primarily, fathers have a "responsibility" for child $upport but the mother does not have an equal "responsibility". As a matter of course, fathers pay money to the mothers but mothers do not have to spend it on the children as long as they are minimally cared for (using the fact that nearly all custodial parents are mothers). IOW, she has less "responsibility" to the same children while his sole "responsibility" is $$$. There you go again. To you, it's all about the money. "responsibility ... : moral, legal, or mental accountability" http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...responsibility Still, you have helped to make my point that, at the end of the day, this is all about money. Not moral accountability. Not informed consent. Not the welfare of the child. Money. And specifically evading the payment of money when one is both morally and legally accountable to do so. Legally, yes. Morally, hell no. So after all this, you do agree that it's all about the money, to the point that you will evade your moral accountability for contributing to the pregnancy, and even your moral accountability to the child who carries your DNA. That's disgusting. No more "disgusting" Fredrica, than a woman who CHOOSES to just get rid of her "little problem"...and, you know, I don't think abortion is disgusting at all...I've been actively pro-choice for over 27 years now...the difference is that *I* (and a lot of other pro-choice people I might add) think "choice" is a valid expectation for BOTH men and women. You see Fredrica, it's all about accountability. Who is responsible for what. In a consensual situation, the man and a woman, together, are responsible for the pregnancy, however, THAT is as far as the man's responsible extends BECAUSE the direct casual link between pregnancy and child birth is severed by the woman's SOLE and SOVEREIGN right to CHOSE whether she will allow the pregnancy to continue OR NOT. Some call this a "burden", it's not, it's a choice AND a remedy that is extended to women. As, Karen DeCrow, the President of the National Organization of Women said in 1979: "If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men." and: "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent Decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choices." This was about the time *I* became involved with pro-choice because I "though" I was working for a worthwhile, egalitarian cause. Radical feminists (who, BTW, DO NOT conform to the definition you posted yesterday) have turned feminism and organizations like NOW around 180 degree, away form working for equality and pursuing egalitarian goals, into organizations that seeks special rights and privileges for women and seeks to demonize, discredit and disadvantage men, legally, financially and in their own families as a primary method of obtaining those special rights and privileges. ....Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 28th 05 05:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |