A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Things to think of before you get married again..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old October 12th 06, 12:35 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

teachrmama wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:7%[email protected]

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:[email protected]


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  
Old October 12th 06, 12:43 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 12:47 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Ken Chaddock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 01:49 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:03 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default 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:[email protected]
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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:08 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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:[email protected]
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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:18 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:20 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:20 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Things to think of before you get married again..

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:7%[email protected]
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  
Old October 12th 06, 03:29 PM posted to alt.mens-rights,alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.