TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws
give
all
choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the
mother
chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding
more
options
and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men
is
NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it
should

come
an
equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both
responsibility
and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that
a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years
and
their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did
not
give
birth to them.

Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held
LEGALLY
responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice.




That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course,
for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility,
that
doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can
escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after
birth
by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has
no
choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE
decides
he
is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more.
You
cannot
hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house
payment
for
12
years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility
to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Irrelevant.

My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice.

Impossible.

Why would his choice to
have and raise these children be seen as any different from my
choice
to
do
so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but
I
didn't.
So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple.


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after
the
birth
of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to
continue
to support them because that is what the children were accustomed
to,
not
that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to
raise
them
together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing!

No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning

Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle?

You don't want to be enlightened, Chris. You want to change the current
darkness that you hate for darkness more to your liking.

I don't tell you what YOU want, so please don't tell me what I want.
Again, what makes them different?

You post consistently what you want: Total freedom to have sex with no fear
of ever being held responsible for a child. MEN having no responsibilities
toward children because they have no uteri--women bearing the entire burden
because they do. Are you trying to say that you have not expressed these
thoughts, Chris?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is
causing
so
much
pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same
solution
in
reverse.

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they
must
have
equal
(or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws
give
all
choices
to
women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother
chooses
otherwise)
and there are still some women demanding more options and
less
responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from
men
is
NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL
responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?

The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without
choice.

==================================


That, of course, is the root of the disagreement,
Chris.
I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the
opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess
what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply
follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well,
Chris.
Of
course,
for
individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility,
that
doesn't
count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility.
She
can
escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or
even
after
birth
by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him.
He
has
no
choices
beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE
decides
he
is
and
to
the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and
they
are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot
hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?

Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also
acquire
rights, no?

================================

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the
other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would
ever
be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist
to
me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic
siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does
not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford
to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children
into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that
does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a
child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more
power
to
him!

Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I
find
that deplorable.

One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus
accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.

You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate
so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.

Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil.

Look at the system you hate so much, replace those who cater to women with
those who cater to men and--voila--there is the system you espouse.

In your WILDEST dreams! Never have I suggested that men rip-off women,
NEVER! Now prove me wrong.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message

[snip]

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed
in
the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need
balance
and
fairness.

A concept FOREIGN to you.

Now, Chris, TM is well aware of the problems in the system of divorce
and custody, especially custody and child support.
She understands that well.

So long as she denies the relationship between rights (or "choice" as
you
put it) and responsibilities, she does NOT understand it. And guess
what,
she DENIES it!


I use the word "choice" because "rights", by law must be equal and the
"choice" of men and women in reproductive matters is vastly different
(men have none).

I think the problem she is having in understanding the full control over
all matters of reproduction that women have is because she is sincere in
her marriage being a partnership.



[snip]


Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from
never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.

I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less
damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?


I don't believe this is true at all. Men have NEVER divorced in
numbers
like women have been over the past 3 or 4 decades.

Correct, but the percentage who do may very well be on the decline
based
upon the scenario I presented. But then again, her experience may be
based
upon an isolated pocket out of the much larger group. There were
houses in
New Orleans that actually remained dry.

With the decline in marriage, it would be difficult to judge, however, I
believe most men who were, and are, in an unhappy marriage do everything
they could to fix the problems instead of seeking divorce as the first
action, mainly because that is how men's minds operate in regard to his
family. Also, the wife in a family seems more important that a wife's
opinion of a husband in regard to a family. It would be difficult to
determine if men were more worried about keeping the family intact or
worried about the legal, emotional and financial problems that are sure
to follow divorce.


Men are more likely to try to fix the problems while women are less
likely, especially with enticements from the government to divorce.

My claim is true. Personally, I know men who stay based upon those
circumstances. Unless, of course, they are lieing to me.

I don't doubt that there are many instances where you are spot on,
however, I am not prepared to say that this is the majority. It COULD Be
but again it might not be. There is much to be said about a man's
determination to keep both parents in his children's life. (It seems to
me that fathers understand the importance of both parents moreso that
women, who seem eager to believe they can be both father and mother).
Phil #3

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in
family
court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear
absolutely
no responsibility for any children you might help produce.

"Help produce"? Well guess what, the grandmother "helped produce" the
child
too. Without HER biological contribution, there would be no child. So
guess
she should also bear responsibility.

Your grandmother inserted her penis into the vagina of a fertile young
woman, providing the sperm that connected to an egg and began a child?
You
have one amazing grandmother, Chris!

Did I say that? Did anyone hear me say that? Did ANYBODY say that?
Last I checked, everyone I know has two grandmothers. Gee, I wonder why.



Indeed, I would GLADLY replace the "family" court whackjobs with
"whackjobs"
who can make the connection between responsibilities and rights. But
then
there would no longer be any such "family" court.

That's right--replace the whackjobs that are screwing you with whackjobs
who
will screw someone else. Nice, Chris, really nice.......

Explain how NOT holding someone responsible for the choice of another
"screws" someone else.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in
family
court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear
absolutely
no responsibility for any children you might help produce.

"Help produce"? Well guess what, the grandmother "helped produce" the
child
too. Without HER biological contribution, there would be no child. So
guess
she should also bear responsibility.

Your grandmother inserted her penis into the vagina of a fertile young
woman, providing the sperm that connected to an egg and began a child?
You
have one amazing grandmother, Chris!

Did I say that? Did anyone hear me say that? Did ANYBODY say that?
Last I checked, everyone I know has two grandmothers. Gee, I wonder why.



Indeed, I would GLADLY replace the "family" court whackjobs with
"whackjobs"
who can make the connection between responsibilities and rights. But
then
there would no longer be any such "family" court.

That's right--replace the whackjobs that are screwing you with whackjobs
who
will screw someone else. Nice, Chris, really nice.......

Explain how NOT holding someone responsible for the choice of another
"screws" someone else.

Like the idea or not, Chris, it takes 2 people to create a child. The laws,
as they are now, give the mother far too many options, and the father far
too few. The laws need to be changed so that the man has the same degree of
post-conception choice as the woman now has. IOW, the man should have the
same safe-haven rights as the woman, and be able to walk away from an
unwanted pregnancy.

You want to go way, way beyond that and say that any man can walk away from
any child at any time because that man does not have a uterus and could not
possible have given birth. You are mixing together post-conception rights
and the sad state of post divorce custody rulings. They are NOT the same
issue, and cannot be dealt with by a blanket solution. 50/50 default joint
custody with each parent providing for the child while the child is with
them is what I feel should be the solution to the vast majority of custody
issues.

But having the legal right to walk away from any child at any time is
**not** the solution to either of the above-mentioned issues!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give
all
choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother
chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more
options and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that
a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause
**he** did not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice
the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate
and unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting
for.

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the advent of
abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to the anti-male
court decisions and tactics. The first thing that will be needed to
fight
for them is to fight for the equalization of rights AND responsibilities
of both parties. As long as abortion on demand is available to women
without any consideration to the father and as long as "no-fault
divorce"
exists coupled to the anti-male legal procedures available to women of
questionable moral standards, nothing can change for the better.

Absolutely. But do you eally believe that the judges that sit in family
court are gong to listen and/or uphold the "rights/responsibilities"
argumant, and permit men to walk away from any responsibility just because
they do not have any rights? I cannot see that happening. I can,
however,
see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It is going to be a
long
and bloody battle.

Well guess what, the only way that is going to happen is if blood is shed
literally. Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that we are dealing
with insane people who will defend their agenda at all costs.

We need to fight for rights for men in several areas.
But we also need to fight for MORE RESPONSILILITY for the women who, at
this
point in time, are living off of men, and have absolutely no means or
desrie
to support themselves and their children. Holding women accountable would
be a MAJOR step!!



Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the step to
become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a parent at any
time
up until actually signing the document legalizing his responsibility. In
other words, he had a clear and definite legal choice and had to take
actual steps to become a parent. A married man is the father and has no
options other than to be celebate, which is not likely to be a long or
happy marriage.

My husband and I decided together to bring our children into the world.

Untrue.

He
is not a "victim." We both love our children and want the best for them.
One is 13.5, and the other is truning 15 on Weds. How can you say that
his
choice/responsibility is any less than that of an adoptive father? That
is
where my understanding breaks down. I don't understand how you interpret
his parenthood as being *forced* when he loves and wanted our girls just
as
much as I did.

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a drunk
driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk driver to
drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current situation is
like
putting the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened to
passengers?

When it comes to making the choice whether or not she will bear a child, men
are just along for the ride. And that's the LAW!




The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral responsibility
in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family courts
fight to give women the majority of the options now, what makes you think
you could **ever** get things changed to women being the ones being
screwed
by the law and men having all the choices?

NOWHERE does he ever suggest that!


The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women
can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have the same
ability in the same time period to make the same decision to abort his
responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make both parents
truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born children. This
would also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue for child
support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities.

......... except when it comes to the right to choose parenthood.

Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood being equally important
in
the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to
him.
He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded
or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and
yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!! Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Why don't you answer his question? I thought it was straightforward.

He and
I
agreed. We BOTH made the commitment! And continue to do so each and
every
day. Just because the law says I could do otherwise does not mean that I
would disgrace myself in such a way. And there are many of us who feel
the
exact same way! I even know quite a number of divorced couples who would
not **dream** of subjugating their children to the idiocy of fighting over
who is the most important parent. Honor still means something to most
people. We just happen to be caust up in a system that is run by
slimeballs, and it is easy to forget that most people would be shocked if
they ever really knew what is going onm and paid for by their hard-earned
tax dollars.

The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and have a
child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR he had the
ability to deny responsibility for the child.

But, again, you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the honor
and
dignity that are the biggest part of our commitment to each other and our
children. There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to
be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held responsible for what "might be done."

The above is like saying pay no attention to a system that allows men to
rape women because some will choose to not be a part of it.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That is
far
more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities that we
would
never consider.

TOTALLY irrelevant to someone being attacked by such laws.






Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children
result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a
monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal responsibility,
even
sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not and
never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that
I
am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG.
You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that
there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have
any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even that
doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact that you
regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal rights remain
yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

When it comes to the people with the bigger guns, legal rights are the ONLY
rights that count.

There ARE many, many
good
and honorable people out there who will **never** avail themselves of the
legal rights you speak of, but you seem to be tarring all women with the
same brush.

He's done no such thing. He is only pointing out how the courts are tarring
fathers.


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH
choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was
YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was wholly
dependent on you, either way.

So? Why is this so important to you?

May not be important to him, but it is a legal fact that you dispute.

Do you really think that all women
are so shallow that they have their "legal rights" uppermost in their
minds,
and are just waiting for an opportunity to harm their husbands?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say the answer is no. Since this
is a straw man, your question is irrelevant anyway.



You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless how
badly
he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child he produced that
he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to have the meaning you
ascribed to it was still not legally binding in any manner.

There you are with the "legal" again. I don't live my life with that as
my
primary focus.

Of course not because you don't have such legal burden. Never had it, don't
have it now, and NEVER will have it. Perhaps if you did, your tune would be
different. I see you go ballistic even at the thought of removing the unfair
burden on fathers and placing back on mothers where it RIGHTFULLY belongs!
And that's just making things fair. Now imagine going one step further and
making them just as unfair to mothers as they have been to fathers. You
would probably go through the roof!





So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.

Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women,
marry them with no intention of ever being there for any children that
come along, get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you
object to women doing you WANT men to be able to do. Is that truly how
you want things to be?

No, you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm saying that responsibility should be equal to one's choices.
If anyone has unilateral choices, they should have unilateral
responsiblilty for those choices.

But, Phil, men will **never** be able to bear children--any more than
women
can create a child withou at leas some small help from a man.

"Small" certainly is an understatement.

That is the
biology if it. Do you really think it would be right for all women
everywhere to always be 100% responsible for every child, with men
**never**
having any responsibility for where they sow their seed?

Sowing seed does NOT equal child.



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced
to continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to
my sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a
stranger that had the responsibility to pay his mother.

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need
balance
and fairness.

Exactly!!!!!!


I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other
children, vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce
and
custody "agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while
giving
me a set and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she
wished. It was all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?

That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed.


Agreed but it's all tied together.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time
limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he
will ever get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk
to
a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes
toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.

Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.

That is strikingly odd when so many children are from divorced or
never-married families.

Yes, it is the best year yet for intact homes. A decade ago it fell at
around 50% I do think the tide is changing.





The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to
match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they
should
be given choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.
Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent
chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should
pay
the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the
child. If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the
time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all
about
holding people responsible for their own choices!

Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the
children from the area of the other without their express permission,
I
agree.

The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change.

I've been fighting for over 3 decades and it only continues to worsen.
I don't even have a dog in this fight any more but I keep writing,
talking
and reading about it.

I don't have a dog in the fight any more, either (although that could
change
if the young lady decides to go back to school--then there would be 2 more
years). But I won't stop fighting, and taking , and sharing, and trying
to
open eyes to what is happening.

You can start by opening your OWN eyes.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

================================

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever
be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to
me.

What a bunch of crap!

What's crap is FORCING a man into responsibility for a choice that was
impossible for him to make!

I chose to become the father of my children.

Correction: That choice was made FOR you.

My choice was by free will and
not some judicial authority making me become a father by fiat.


If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights
and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court
order
are
only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their
free
will to be a parent.

Fine, then YOU stand up against their guns.

Your way doesn't work. Period.

And what way might that be?

But my way allows me to parent as I define
the role of parenting. I guess that is why I am not bitter about being a
parent.

Good for you.






But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic
siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that
does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a
child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power
to
him!

I say this right is more than voluntary.

I was referring to responsibility, not rights.

So let's cut to the chase. Is the obligation to support your children a
right or a responsibility in your eyes? I say it is both and marital
status
or circumstances have nothing to do with the basic parental obligation.

Typical propoganda. "You have the RIGHT to pay child support". Certainly has
a nice ring to it. Does this mean that the mother has a "responsibility" to
take the free cash?



Fathers have every right to reach
out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of
what
any
court says.

How do you determine which laws one has the right to violate?

A person can choose to violate any law. I choose top violate no laws.

Don't twist it. I asked how you determine the laws that one has a "RIGHT" to
violate; not which ones they can or which ones YOU choose. So "cut to the
chase".



The children get it in the long run. And having parental
rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the
rights,
you accept the responsibilities.

Which is PRECISELY the problem! The so-called "family" court enforces
reponsibility while at the same time DENYING the accompanying rights.
Additionally, they heap such responsibility upon those who are incapable
of
making the choice that merits the responsibility in the first place. Get
it?

Continuing to equate every family law issues to a court's decision is
insane. Half of all marriages remain intact and the family courts never
have a say in the parental rights and responsibilities of those children
or
what those parents do.

That's where you're wrong. "Family" courts have already determined that
fathers have the responsibilities and mothers have the rights. Whether
families remain intact or not is irrelevant. That'd be like saying the 65
speed limit does not apply to me because I am only going 50. What's insane
is the minds of the "child support" people.

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message

[snip]

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in
the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need
balance
and
fairness.

A concept FOREIGN to you.

Now, Chris, TM is well aware of the problems in the system of divorce
and custody, especially custody and child support.
She understands that well.

So long as she denies the relationship between rights (or "choice" as you
put it) and responsibilities, she does NOT understand it. And guess what,
she DENIES it!


I use the word "choice" because "rights", by law must be equal and the
"choice" of men and women in reproductive matters is vastly different (men
have none).

I think the problem she is having in understanding the full control over
all matters of reproduction that women have is because she is sincere in
her marriage being a partnership.

I think we need to separate out post-conception rights and custody rights.
Men's post-comceptiom rights should be equitable to women's. Havin a
safe-have type law would cover that issue. Custody is an entirely different
issue. Custody kicks in when both parents want to be active parents in
their child's life and have forgone their safe-haven choices. That is when
default 50/50 joint custody should kick in. Just saying that men should be
able to walk away from any child at any time because they do not have the
anatomy to bear children is as bad as saying that men should pay child
support for every child simply becuse they are men. But we absolutely must
separate out post-comception and custody issues.

"Chris" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip

You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you
hate
so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.

Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil.

Look at the system you hate so much, replace those who cater to women
with
those who cater to men and--voila--there is the system you espouse.

In your WILDEST dreams! Never have I suggested that men rip-off women,
NEVER! Now prove me wrong.

You want to put into place a system that does not even begin to consider the
*real importance* of a father in a child's life, and have men be roaming
tomcats that can come and go as their lust or pleasure dictrates, with no
responsibilities whatsoever. That is as eveil as the system that says men
are only worth their wallets, and have no other value in a child's life.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
snip for length

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the advent
of
abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to the anti-male
court decisions and tactics. The first thing that will be needed to
fight
for them is to fight for the equalization of rights AND
responsibilities
of both parties. As long as abortion on demand is available to women
without any consideration to the father and as long as "no-fault
divorce"
exists coupled to the anti-male legal procedures available to women of
questionable moral standards, nothing can change for the better.

Absolutely. But do you eally believe that the judges that sit in family
court are gong to listen and/or uphold the "rights/responsibilities"
argumant, and permit men to walk away from any responsibility just
because
they do not have any rights? I cannot see that happening. I can,
however,
see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It is going to be a
long
and bloody battle.

Well guess what, the only way that is going to happen is if blood is shed
literally. Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that we are dealing
with insane people who will defend their agenda at all costs.
================================
As you do yours, Chris. If you really feel that blood must be shed to right
this wrong, why haven't you done so? Or is it just words with you, and you
are hoping that others will take the actions that you see as inevitable, and
bear the brunt of the repercussions.
=================================


We need to fight for rights for men in several areas.
But we also need to fight for MORE RESPONSILILITY for the women who, at
this
point in time, are living off of men, and have absolutely no means or
desrie
to support themselves and their children. Holding women accountable
would
be a MAJOR step!!



Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be
held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the step
to
become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a parent at any
time
up until actually signing the document legalizing his responsibility.
In
other words, he had a clear and definite legal choice and had to take
actual steps to become a parent. A married man is the father and has no
options other than to be celebate, which is not likely to be a long or
happy marriage.

My husband and I decided together to bring our children into the world.

Untrue.
========================
Only in your bitter little world, Chris.
===================


He
is not a "victim." We both love our children and want the best for them.
One is 13.5, and the other is truning 15 on Weds. How can you say that
his
choice/responsibility is any less than that of an adoptive father? That
is
where my understanding breaks down. I don't understand how you interpret
his parenthood as being *forced* when he loves and wanted our girls just
as
much as I did.

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a drunk
driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk driver to
drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current situation is
like
putting the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just walk
away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened to
passengers?

When it comes to making the choice whether or not she will bear a child,
men
are just along for the ride. And that's the LAW!

=====================
When it comes to the right to bring a pregnancy to birth, that is true.
But after the post-comception rights comes the period of raising the child.
The issues now change from post-conception issues to custody issues. A
completely different scenario requiring a completely different solution.
THAT's the LAW.
============================================





The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility
in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family courts
fight to give women the majority of the options now, what makes you think
you could **ever** get things changed to women being the ones being
screwed
by the law and men having all the choices?

NOWHERE does he ever suggest that!

=============================
Sure you do, Chris. All the time. You want ot remove any vestige of
responsibility for children from men. A system fully as evil as the one in
place today.
========================================



The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women
can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have the
same
ability in the same time period to make the same decision to abort his
responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make both parents
truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born children.
This
would also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue for
child
support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and
responsibilities.

........ except when it comes to the right to choose parenthood.

=========================
On the contrary, Chris, I have always maintained that men need a safe-haven
law equitable to the one in place for women.
===========================

Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood being equally important
in
the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to
him.
He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only
if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made
the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged,
pleaded
or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and
yours alone.

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?

But I **didn't**!!! Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Why don't you answer his question? I thought it was straightforward.

=======================
That **is** the answer, Chris! People are defined by their choices. I
**did not** subvert his choices--we both chose to have our children, and we
are raising them together. Problem is, you don't recognize it as an answer
because it does not fit into your bitter little world.
===========================


He and
I
agreed. We BOTH made the commitment! And continue to do so each and
every
day. Just because the law says I could do otherwise does not mean that I
would disgrace myself in such a way. And there are many of us who feel
the
exact same way! I even know quite a number of divorced couples who would
not **dream** of subjugating their children to the idiocy of fighting
over
who is the most important parent. Honor still means something to most
people. We just happen to be caust up in a system that is run by
slimeballs, and it is easy to forget that most people would be shocked if
they ever really knew what is going onm and paid for by their hard-earned
tax dollars.

The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and have a
child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR he had the
ability to deny responsibility for the child.

But, again, you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the honor
and
dignity that are the biggest part of our commitment to each other and our
children. There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to
be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held responsible for what "might be done."

The above is like saying pay no attention to a system that allows men to
rape women because some will choose to not be a part of it.

=========================
No, Chris, it's not. I have never said that the system should be ignored. I
have espoused specific solutions that need to be fought for. I am saying
that you cannot hold every individual everywhere responsible for acts that
the **might commit.** Do you think you should be arrested because you
**might commit** murder? Or do you think you should only be held
responsible if you *do* commit murder?
=========================


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That is
far
more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities that we
would
never consider.

TOTALLY irrelevant to someone being attacked by such laws.

==================
And that in no way reflects on our commitment to each other and our
children, Chris. WE chose to have chldren and WE are raising them TOGETHER.
===============================







Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with
children
result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a
monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal responsibility,
even
sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not and
never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want
that
I
am "pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG.
You are far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that
there are still decent, caring people in this world.

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have
any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even that
doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact that you
regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal rights remain
yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way.

When it comes to the people with the bigger guns, legal rights are the
ONLY
rights that count.

=========================
That seems to be the way it is in yourcase, Chris. But it is not so for
everyone.
=====================================

There ARE many, many
good
and honorable people out there who will **never** avail themselves of the
legal rights you speak of, but you seem to be tarring all women with the
same brush.

He's done no such thing. He is only pointing out how the courts are
tarring
fathers.


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I
didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH
choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was
YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was wholly
dependent on you, either way.

So? Why is this so important to you?

May not be important to him, but it is a legal fact that you dispute.

================
No, Chris, I don't. I just say that there is more to life than the legal
that you seem so intent on raising to godhood. Our choices were not based
on legal, but on our commitment to each other.
=========================


Do you really think that all women
are so shallow that they have their "legal rights" uppermost in their
minds,
and are just waiting for an opportunity to harm their husbands?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say the answer is no. Since
this
is a straw man, your question is irrelevant anyway.



You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless how
badly
he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child he produced
that
he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to have the meaning you
ascribed to it was still not legally binding in any manner.

There you are with the "legal" again. I don't live my life with that as
my
primary focus.

Of course not because you don't have such legal burden. Never had it,
don't
have it now, and NEVER will have it. Perhaps if you did, your tune would
be
different. I see you go ballistic even at the thought of removing the
unfair
burden on fathers and placing back on mothers where it RIGHTFULLY belongs!
And that's just making things fair. Now imagine going one step further and
making them just as unfair to mothers as they have been to fathers. You
would probably go through the roof!
========================
Hahahahahaha! What a jerk, Chris!! Our lives were turned upside down by
the legal system you claim has not harmed me. Do you think I started posting
on this group just for the fun of it. I **HAVE** been harmed by the system.
My children **HAVE** been harmed by the system. And not because of any
choices that **I** made!
===========================================