If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |