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

TN - Child support termination bill attacked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old May 18th 08, 07:15 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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
...

"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.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris.

Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting

for.

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?

That depends on how the contract is written.

Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN
should
bear
the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading

what
you
write.

And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always

believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.
===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so

you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.


Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice.

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




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 is!

For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate

at
will
and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris.

It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above
statements
that runs the "child support" industry.
=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along.

Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing

things,
MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to

pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your

thought
process has led you.


I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is anything
BUT
like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that
responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist without
the
other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the
opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay
anyone anything. Get it right.


So you are thinking that when good old dad walks out because he did not
choose to et pregnant and give birth himself--and takes his paycheck with
him which, until that time, had helped support the household--mom is

**not**
going to have to pay anything?


No.

Hmmm....interesting......

But then you have consistently maintained that no man anywhere should

ever,
ever, ever have any responsibility toward a child if he doesn't want to
because he does not have a uterus.


I have NEVER made such claim.

YOU are malionh biology the determinant
of responsibility, because you **know** that you will never have the parts
to bring a child to birth.


Untrue.

But you do not seem to understand the first
thing about being a father.


In YOUR opinion.

You only think about you and what you should be
able to get out of it for fun and for free.


Not even close.

So mature on your part,
Chrissy.......




  #132  
Old May 18th 08, 07:33 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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! 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.


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. Fathers have every right to
reach out to their children and exert their parental rights

regardless
of
what any court says. 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.

I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore
thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should

have
no
responsibilities--that it should all be his choice.


"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes
to
a woman's choice to bear a child.

I vehemently disagree
with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child

at
any
time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth.


That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.


IMO you are mixing up parental responsibilities with parental obligations.
They are not the same thing so lumping them together is totally illogical.


In YOUR mind, what's the difference?

And it is even more illogical to claim either of those concepts are tied

to
childbirth decisions.


You claim so because you can't make the connection between choice and
responsibility. "It is totally illogical to hold me responsible for the
victim's death just because I made the decision to place a .38 slug into his
head."




  #133  
Old May 18th 08, 07:44 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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
...

"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.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris.

Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting

for.

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?

That depends on how the contract is written.

Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN
should
bear
the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading
what
you
write.

And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always
believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument
is
starting to make me second guess.
===================
And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so

you
will NEVER have to accept responsibility.

Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice.

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




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 is!

For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate

at
will
and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris.

It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above
statements
that runs the "child support" industry.
=======================
That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along.

Your
mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing

things,
MEN
will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to

pay.
EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your
thought
process has led you.

I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is
anything
BUT
like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that
responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist
without
the
other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the
opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay
anyone anything. Get it right.


So you are thinking that when good old dad walks out because he did not
choose to et pregnant and give birth himself--and takes his paycheck with
him which, until that time, had helped support the household--mom is

**not**
going to have to pay anything?


No.


===================================
Oh, yeah, that's right. It doesn't cost one thin dime to support children.
A statement you have made but never bothered to back up.
================================


Hmmm....interesting......

But then you have consistently maintained that no man anywhere should

ever,
ever, ever have any responsibility toward a child if he doesn't want to
because he does not have a uterus.


I have NEVER made such claim.


======================
Yes you have. You say that, since men do not have the final decision on
whetehr or not a birth takes place, they should have no responsibility
toward the children. Remember? And, since the final decision obviously
belongs to the one who will do the birthing, that means that men will never
be responsible. You have taken it so far as to say that a father can walk
out on his teenagers who he has raised since their births because he did not
make the decision to bith them.
============================


YOU are malionh biology the determinant
of responsibility, because you **know** that you will never have the
parts
to bring a child to birth.


Untrue.


======================
You mean you do plan to have the parts required to give birth some day?
============================

But you do not seem to understand the first
thing about being a father.


In YOUR opinion.


====================================
An opinion formed from what you say here, Chris.
============================


  #134  
Old May 18th 08, 07:54 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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
...
"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.


It "takes" the biology of MANY people to create a child. (Remember, if we
didn't have the grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents,
etc., there would be NO child.) BUT, it takes the choice of only ONE person;
and guess who that might be.

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.


Untrue.

You are mixing together post-conception rights
and the sad state of post divorce custody rulings.


I have mixed nothing. I am speaking only on the relationship between rights
and responsibilities.

They are NOT the same
issue, and cannot be dealt with by a blanket solution.


SURE they can! It's called responsibilities = rights. Oh wait, I forgot; you
don't subscribe to such concept. My mistake.

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!


It most certainly is, because it places rights on an even par with
responsibilities.
So tell me, who's getting screwed by not holding someone responsible for the
choice of another?










  #135  
Old May 18th 08, 07:56 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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
...

"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?


For some strange reason my mind just drew a blank. Perhaps you can help me
with a few quotes.
For the last time, what makes them different?





  #136  
Old May 18th 08, 09:09 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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
...

"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?


For some strange reason my mind just drew a blank. Perhaps you can help me
with a few quotes.
For the last time, what makes them different?


See what a twisted, warped liar you are, Chris. You play these stupid
little word tap=dance games. You most assuredly **have** said that men do
not maker the decision to give birth, so they should be free to walk away
from their children--even years and years after they are born. You have
said that it is impossible for a man to be part of the decision for a child
to be born, so the resulting child is **not** his responsibility.


  #137  
Old May 18th 08, 09:11 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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
...


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.


Straw man. Again, PROVE that I have ever suggested that men rip-off women;
PROVE IT!





  #138  
Old May 18th 08, 04:34 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default TN - Child support termination bill attacked



--
[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
...

"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 someone saying that?

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.


Just curious: Since the woman makes the SOLE CHOICE to bear a child, why
should the father (who was already FORCED to be a parent) be FURTHER forced
to make any decision regarding her child?






  #139  
Old May 18th 08, 06:07 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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
...
"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.


It "takes" the biology of MANY people to create a child. (Remember, if we
didn't have the grandparents, great grandparents, great great
grandparents,
etc., there would be NO child.) BUT, it takes the choice of only ONE
person;
and guess who that might be.

========================
No, Chris, it takes an egg an a sperm--and guess where they come from. Your
tap-dancing is not going to change that.
=========================


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.


Untrue.


=========================
You absolutely did say that, Chris. You said that a married man who chose
to walk away from wife and kids should be able to do so with no
responsibilities because he did not make the choice to breing the children
into the world.
===============================


You are mixing together post-conception rights
and the sad state of post divorce custody rulings.


I have mixed nothing. I am speaking only on the relationship between
rights
and responsibilities.


=============================
And you have stated that, because the man did not have the post-conception
right of either terminating or continuing the pregnancy, that *only* the
mother has responsibility for the child from that point on.
================================



  #140  
Old May 18th 08, 06:11 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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
...

"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 someone saying that?


===========================
Yes, Chris! YOU! You have stated that because ONLY a woman can choose to
bring a child to birth, ONLY a woman is responsible for the child. You
point blank told me that my husband had *no choice* in the decision to bring
our children into the world!
================================


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.


Just curious: Since the woman makes the SOLE CHOICE to bear a child, why
should the father (who was already FORCED to be a parent) be FURTHER
forced
to make any decision regarding her child?



======================
And that is exactly what I am talking about. You hold the man completely
unaccountable in every way for the creation of the child because he does not
have the anatomy to give birth and, therefore, does not have the ***legal***
final choice in the matter.


 




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
FL: Child-support bill clears panel Dusty Child Support 2 April 15th 06 10:49 PM
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support Dusty Child Support 7 April 6th 06 05:53 AM
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail Dusty Child Support 22 January 26th 06 08:44 PM
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill Dusty Child Support 2 May 24th 05 02:17 AM
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support Dusty Child Support 28 June 23rd 04 04:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.