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 |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
teachrmama wrote:
"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. Oh man, you're preaching to the choir... ....Ken |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: 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. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. 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-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. 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? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] 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. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this just PMS? What a freakin' loony! But Bob, you must admit that "Fred" is great for comic relief...I haven't laughed so much in a long time... :-) ....Ken |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
teachrmama wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message e.net... Bob Whiteside wrote: 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. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. 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-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. 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? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] 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. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this just PMS? What a freakin' loony! I'll say! Maybe she sould get out into the real world and get a job. She spends far too much time mulling over how she was done wrong by a man who was more adolescent than man. I guess she thinks she is owed by every man alive now. Geesh! You're making the *assumption* that she was "done wrong"...maybe her SO/husband was a perfectly great guy who she dumped because she though the grass would be greener and has now found out that it's not but she can't accept that her current situation is of her own making so she is looking for someone...anyone...to blame. She wouldn't be the first I've met like this... ....Ken |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote "Fred" wrote Bob Whiteside wrote: ......................... And you won't answer my question, either. Once again, you studiously avoid answering the tough ones. That's intellectually dishonest, Bob. I never typed that. You are mixing up the posters. == Ah, so Fred can't read headers any better than Hyerdahl. Where is Hyerdahl, anyway? |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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 And you don't find anything wrong with allowing one parent to not work while threatening the other with jail for not providing cash to the first parent? It is bad enough that the first parent was legally able to hide the parentage of the child for so long but for the state to create any arrearage whatever is a gross misjustice for both the child and the second parent. Phil #3 Nice try, though. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this just PMS? What a freakin' loony! And you expect to be able to logically explain *anything* to her, someone who is so rabidly anti-male, ignorant and too lazy (or stupid) to even look up simple things in order to discuss them? Phil #3 |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... I'll say! Maybe she sould get out into the real world and get a job. She spends far too much time mulling over how she was done wrong by a man who was more adolescent than man. I guess she thinks she is owed by every man alive now. Geesh! Which, in a nutshell *is* feminism. Phil #3 |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:7%fXg.7687$P7.2176@edtnps90... Moon Shyne wrote: 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... But people do every day... They excuse their behavior by stating "I changed my mind." It boils down to that the real problems are morals, not legal, issues. Tracy |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"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? 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. Yer right. Mothers have NO legal responsibility, it seems. 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. 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. Since you seem to think that turning the baby over to someone else is okay as long as the baby is cared for by someone capable, I am very curious as to why then is it improper for a father to just leave when the baby is being cared for by the mother. Under your argument, using the same reasoning you use for mothers to leave the baby with an unrelated individual and walk away, fathers should also be able to do exactly the same thing without penalty or fear of prosecution. It seems there is a desire to have two distinctly different levels of society: 1) mothers; and 2) everyone else. Phil #3 |
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 |