Things to think of before you get married again..

Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for their
choices. What's wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take
responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no
different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking
problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are
those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and
then there those who see they are responsible for their actions/choices.
Exactly.

These boys are the ultimate in sexist selfishness. If they can't control
the woman, they want nothing to do with her ... and their children. And,
of course, that means not having to support the children that they
actively, willingly, and with informed consent participated in
procreating.

"She's being irresponsible!", they bleat, claiming this as justification
for their own claims to irresponsible behavior. Well, even if/when she
*is* being irresponsible, that absolutely does not justify their being
irresponsible in turn. This is simply a copout.

And for the record, I refer to them as "boys" because in my opinion they
are not men.

Men take responsibility.

Fred - I'm liking you more and more each day! You are right, men take
responsibility and boys don't!

My counselor described my s2bx as a person who is suffering from Narcissism.
When I looked up the disorder I found my s2bx's described perfectly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciss...ality_disorder

Your s2bx and my ex are a match made in hell! (8-)

I had to often wonder if I married a man in his 40's or a teenager who just
received his license to drive!

In terms of personality, you married the teenager. So did I.

Narcissists were described to me as people who do not have an autonomous
self-image. They need feedback from others to provide a self-image for them.

Our "boys" aren't narcissists. They're just selfish.

"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 can
understand that. But I don't think the law should require anything of him,
you, or anyone else than it requires from married parents.

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:7%fXg.7687$P7.2176@edtnps90...
Moon Shyne wrote:

"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?

How do we do it now ? What he means is that if you were in a relationship
where having children was an agreed upon objective or wherein you had
agreed to the commitment of having and supporting children, you don't get
to *LEGALLY* walk away just because you might want to. (Note, this
relationship doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage, it could be
co-habitation, if could even be separate habitation but you've told the
pregnant women that you agree to support the child...which influences her
decision to have the child...you don't get to arbitrarily walk away if
you've freely made a commitment...

"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.

The courts sort it out...like now...

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)

The courts sort it out...just like now.

But the courts should not be able to require anything more than they require
of married parents. Period.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.

Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required
to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no
mandatory
medical information."

So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very
serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.

I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and
force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't
want.

Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women
for having a child they didn't want.

Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired
these unwanted children as well?

Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women
can live off of public money and child support. How about if women start
being prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle
your mind a bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not
talking about just the safe haven kids.

Well, that was a non-answer.

No, it wasn't






Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital
drug
to stop the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.

have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.

We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
AS MEN, Moon! Pay attention!

I am - and the woman is NOT legally required to terminate the pregnancy,
no matter what you, or anyone else wants.

Where on g*d's green earth did you come up with that one?





give the
child up for adoption,

What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're
adopted.

or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she
chose to have the child and then abandon it.

Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for
adoption.

Oh yes they are. But you already knew that.

They're all adopted into families that love them and raise them.



The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.

Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven'
is not abandonment.

Of course it is.

Then let's abolish adoption - that's the same legally sanctioned
abandonment.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong
opinions
about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the
Minnesota
laws regarding women's parental avoidance.

Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years.

"Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a
mother
can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of
prosecution.
She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required
to
do
so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no
mandatory
medical information."

So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a
firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very
serious
question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit.

I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and
force
her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't
want.

Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women
for having a child they didn't want.

Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired
these unwanted children as well?

Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women
can live off of public money and child support. How about if women start
being prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle
your mind a bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not
talking about just the safe haven kids.

Well, that was a non-answer.




Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital
drug
to stop the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.

have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy,

Legal right, not legal responsibility.

We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
AS MEN, Moon! Pay attention!

I am - and the woman is NOT legally required to terminate the pregnancy,
no matter what you, or anyone else wants.




give the
child up for adoption,

What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're
adopted.

or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she
chose to have the child and then abandon it.

Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for
adoption.

Oh yes they are. But you already knew that.

They're all adopted into families that love them and raise them.

So what? In adoption, masses of paperwork are filled out, mom gives up her
legal rights to the child, etc, etc. They are not even vaguely the same
process, although sometimes the end result can be the same. Another major
difference is that dad is notified before an adoption goes through if at all
possible. In safe haven, dad is a non-issue.





The choice between child
neglect and child murder is a false choice.

Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven'
is not abandonment.

Of course it is.

Then let's abolish adoption - that's the same legally sanctioned
abandonment.

See above.

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for
their choices. What's wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take
responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no
different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking
problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are
those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and
then there those who see they are responsible for their
actions/choices.
Exactly.

These boys are the ultimate in sexist selfishness. If they can't control
the woman, they want nothing to do with her ... and their children. And,
of course, that means not having to support the children that they
actively, willingly, and with informed consent participated in
procreating.

"She's being irresponsible!", they bleat, claiming this as justification
for their own claims to irresponsible behavior. Well, even if/when she
*is* being irresponsible, that absolutely does not justify their being
irresponsible in turn. This is simply a copout.

And for the record, I refer to them as "boys" because in my opinion they
are not men.

Men take responsibility.

Fred - I'm liking you more and more each day! You are right, men take
responsibility and boys don't!

My counselor described my s2bx as a person who is suffering from
Narcissism. When I looked up the disorder I found my s2bx's described
perfectly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciss...ality_disorder

Your s2bx and my ex are a match made in hell! (8-)

I had to often wonder if I married a man in his 40's or a teenager who
just received his license to drive!

In terms of personality, you married the teenager. So did I.

Narcissists were described to me as people who do not have an autonomous
self-image. They need feedback from others to provide a self-image for
them.

Our "boys" aren't narcissists. They're just selfish.

Ah--so your husband is not that easy to live with, Freddi?

Bob Whiteside wrote:

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what
you want? I don't.

And you won't answer my question, either. Once again, you studiously
avoid answering the tough ones.

That's intellectually dishonest, Bob.

I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between
having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting
the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe
harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the
irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die
in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?


I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here
is why.

Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political,
economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an
advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality
of the sexes.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would
agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to
the following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers.

And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point
of view, maybe?

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously
avoided answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:1paXg.2413$lj2.1698@trndny01...

"Fred" wrote
.....................
I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to
saying that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing is
demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and the
child be damned.
==
It is about the money Fred--And the fact that the CP isn't required to
spend
a dime of it on the child. While you're sitting there at your computer
pretending
to know what you're talking about, some CP somewhere is spending the
child's support money
on pot, beer, and coke. That you support such neglect is repulsive! Don't
come in here with your
holier than thou attitude when there are children at high risk every day
because of your ignorance
of the system and refusal to get involved! What a bunch of crap! You don't
give a damn about those kids! Go spew your
vileness elsewhere. You're despicable! How many of those at risk kids have
you adopted, Fred?
Wanna know how many of them I and my family have adopted? Nah, you don't
give a damn. All you care
about is that the money keeps flowing to the custodial parent. You and
your ilk are sickening!

I think Freddi-girl IS the custodial parent, Gini! Look at his response to
Tracy in this thread.

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna
give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance
at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what
you want? I don't.

And you won't answer my question, either. Once again, you studiously avoid
answering the tough ones.

That's intellectually dishonest, Bob.

I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between
having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting
the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe
harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the
irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die
in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not
gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's
irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it
die in a dumpster.

What say you?


I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and
here
is why.

Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was
astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic,
and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of
the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree
is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the
following:

"masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are
for male dominance.

That explains a lot ... (8-)

These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year
are
dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by
their birth mothers.

And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from
ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of
view, maybe?

But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided
answering:

You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which
do you choose?

Let's have an honest answer this time.

You preach it , Sister!! Hallelujah!! snicker

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Both base child support on the combined gross incomes of both
parents,

That's after they impute his income up and impute her income down,
then
it's calulated.

Have a friend whose ex's income was imputed down to the point of where
they said she was earning only $800/mth as an RN.
What jurisdiction?

Wayne County, Michigan!

So of the $1600/mth he brings home and now imputed to $2000/mth, his
responsibility according to the Kourt is now $800/mth to support the
child
and it's mother. He's already in arrears, so how does this work for your
responsibility theory?

Works fine. "His semen, his choice, his responsibility." If he doesn't
think that his financial responsibility has been correctly determined,
he can seek judicial review. The current determination is documented,
after all. If it is unjust, then it should be changed.

I must tell you that the story you tell is *very* different from the one
told by my co-worker, who is paying something like $200/month on at
least the same takehome pay. I guess we would need more than hearsay to
figure out exactly why the amounts being paid were ordered.

Well, well, well. The reason for your skewed thinking is finally coming
out.

If all of your conclusions are based on what your co-worker pays, i.e. about
$200 per month, no wonder you can't grasp what people here are saying.

The Census Bureau tracks Child Support data. The average divorced mother
based on their 2003 data just released in July 2006 has a CS award of
$6,906. That is $575 per month. The average never married mother has a CS
award of $6,461. That is $538 per month.

In these newsgroups you are dealing with people who have above average CS
orders.

Do you and your co-worker flip burgers at a fast food restaurant? You have
to be on the very low end of the income scale to be thinking anyone paying
$200 per month in CS payments is typical!