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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Update, with a little further research I've discovered that apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man without asking questions...but only a couple... ...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption... So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ... |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Gini wrote:
"Fred" wrote Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ................................. Last time I looked, we called that "adoption." == Then I suggest you look again. I asked you what "baby dropoff" was. Instead of responding with substance, you respond with a sleazy cheap shot. == "Sleazy?" "Cheap shot?" You don't get out much, do you Fred? == If you are going to play cheap, sleazy games, I won't deal with you. Now then, what's "baby dropoff"? And don't refer me to Andre's screed. I want a substantive description that differentiates between whatever y'all are talking about and adoption. Now get to work or go away. == Do your own work. (You can't afford to hire me. ) See, I already know what it means so I don't have to look it up. Then we have nothing further to discuss. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively for said child and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage, SUV payment? You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's interest. [sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced. But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that implies. Vicious circle. BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child lives is somehow not in the child's interest? |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"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. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively for said child and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage, SUV payment? You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's interest. [sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced. But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that implies. Vicious circle. BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child lives is somehow not in the child's interest? I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to pay the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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? |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"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. Personally, given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse/hospital. Best of a set of bad alternatives. Ah...so you find it ok for a woman to abandon a child, but abhorrent for a man to do so? Why is that, Fred? |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Phil wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:23tWg.8391$vC3.1338@dukeread02... Phil wrote: Equality is bigotry??? I suppose freedom is slavery as well? Your attitude here is double-plus ungood. - Ron ^*^ You speak newspeak. Kool Don't the Family Court judges, lawyers, legislators, and their hangers-on all speak it as well? - Ron ^*^ |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ......................... I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always about the money with y'all. It's disgusting, really. == Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff? What's "baby dropoff"? [sanctimony deleted] ...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress. All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide identification...for future child support no doubt... If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read yourself... Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose. The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse. How about you? So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away, no questions asked? |
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 |