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
...
"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 egg and sperm come from people; and guess where THEY come from. You are
attempting to change the topic from who chooses to bear children to biology.
Ignoratio elenchi. The ONLY tap dancing being done is by YOU.

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


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.

I absolutely did NOT.

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.

Why, do you think, the court people prevent the father from taking her child
away from her? It's called her choice, HER child. But they seem to forget
the second part of the equation: her choice, HER responsibility.

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

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

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

"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.

I prefer the other direction in that parents, regardless their sex be
responsible for the children they create and if actually unable to
actually care for them, to pay someone else to do so. Meaning that no
one gets to just walk away from their responsibility.

And if they don't pay?


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.

As long as none of it is dependent on one's sex, which is the way it is
currently done for both reproduction choices and custody.
I heavily disagree with any parent simply abandoning an infant, mother
or father.
Interestingly, one of the arguments for the current system of child
support is that it keeps the state from having to pay for this unwanted
child yet these same people (feminists) demand that women be allowed to
abandon any unwanted children, leaving them for the state to finance and
no one seems to catch that they are talking out of both sides of their
mouths on this issue (and others).
Phil #3

....

"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.

Oh? And just what is this agenda that I am willing to die for?

Willing to die for? Apparently you're not. But you say that blood must be
shed--I guess you want that to be someone's other than yours.


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.

And in the LEGAL world as well.

Nope--you are absolutely wrong. BOTH of us are legally responsible for our
children.




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.

I rest my case.

Then your case is incomplete--but you already know that.




But after the post-comception rights comes the period of raising the
child.
The issues now change from post-conception issues to custody issues.

Untrue. It's still a post-conception issue.

Only in your bitter little world, Chris.




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.

1. I was referring to the other poster, not myself.
2. NEVER have I claimed that I want women to get screwed by the law and
let
men have all the choices.

No--you say that, since women now have all the choices about giving birth,
they should also have all the responsibility for the child--even if the man
and woman decided together to bring the child into the world. You say that
it is impossible for men to be a part of the decision, because *legally* the
choice to bring a pregnancy to birth rests with the mother. And that
nullifies, in your little world, the fact that men and womwn do, indeed,
make choices together regarding children. You don't seem capable of
understanding that their are people out there--lots of them--who do not look
at every choice as "what will I get out of it--can I screw someone legally
if I do this." There are things far more inmportant in this life than
*legal*.



3.NEVER have I claimed that I want to remove responsibility for children
from men.

No, not remove--but give them the legal right to walk away at any time they
choose to do so, since they are simply being magnanimous in their support of
their children, and can stop at any time.


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



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.

"Parenthood" as in having offspring.

You ask for far too much control over another human being, Chris. If you
provide the sperm that results in a pregnancy, you cannot possibly
realistically demand the right to order an abortion, just because you do not
want that child to exist!



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

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.

"Bitter little world" or not, I don't recognize it as an answer because it
ISN'T an answer. He didn't request a definition; he CLEARLY asked for a
legal right (to make you bear a child) held by your husband that you could
not legally thwart.

There IS no such legal right--we live beyond the necessity of silly little
legal rights. You do not seem to do so. Thus the bitterness of your 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.

"...you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the honor...".
I might add: Of COURSE he's just looking at the system, because it's the
system that's the problem. I went to the doctor for a breathing problem
the
other day. You think they discussed my feet?

The system is there and that cannot be ignored. But there are thousands
upon thousands of people who NEVER get touched by the system. It is
irrelevant in their lives. They make their decisions based on relationship,
commitment, honor--qualities that the system does not comprehend. Although
we were caught up in the system, we did not live our lives based on the
system--we lived our lives based on who we are.


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?

Not worth answering.

What? No answer?


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


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.

Like I said, totally irrelevant to the one being attacked AND the topic at
hand. Also, impossible for "we" to have (choose to bear) children.

Only in your bitter little world, Chris.




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.

When did you change your mind?

I don't live my life always looking at things in terms such as "If this
doesn't work out, can I legally be screwed, ow will I have the legal power
to screw the other person." I'm sorry that you have to live constantly with
such a burden, Chris.




I just say that there is more to life than the legal
that you seem so intent on raising to godhood.

The legal often belongs in the toilet! So much for your "godhood".

No mine, Chris. Yours. I don't elevate the legal to the point of letting
it determine my every choice.



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!

For what it's worth, this funny "jerk" was referring to the legal burden
placed on a man, because he is a father, of being forced to pay his money
to
a woman for her sole choice to bear his biological child. YOU had that
burden?

Our family had that burden, Chris. Do you relly think that only the man is
harmed by the system? Must be that man-as-victim thing again.

"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.

Of course not. We live in a highly feminized society where women are given
special legal abilities without the same responsibility that men have.
This includes more than reproductive rights and includes criminal charges,
divorce, custody, child support, the armed forces, jobs, sexual
harassment, etc.

I can, however, see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It is
going to be a long and bloody battle. We need to fight for rights for men
in several areas.

I see no major changes, only individual skirmishes won that carry no
meaning in the overall war.

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!!

No argument from me there. Women should be held to the same standard as
men and visa versa but I don't believe it can happen in my lifetime.




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.
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.

You allowed his voice to have meaning, the state didn't. Legally, he has
no position in the decision. What would have been the result had you
discovered an unplanned pregnancy and he definitely didn't want a child
but you 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?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women make.




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?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give up
the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't become
pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The problem is
that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned or not but only
women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does not put any more
responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for the choices
they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity on the man.


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. 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**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in this
matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either way,
the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still had
legal options.

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.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.
Many women change their minds and disregard their husband's wishes. What
*you* would do doesn't help those men at all.

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.

This NG exists because many would and do.
I sometimes wonder which is the larger number; those who do right or those
who are greedy and selfish.

Honor still means something to most people.

I'm not sure I agree. I think greed and false pride has replaced honor.

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.

People don't care as long as they have "reality TV shows" like "Biggest
Loser", "Survivor" until reality shows up on their doorstep. I was the
same way.


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.

You have far more faith in people than I.

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."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they make
and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have no legal
options beyond conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is giving men the same
or similar options, which even out the responsibility or remove the
special options of women putting them on the same plane.


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.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all those
who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal, we
don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.





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.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential street
should be more important than the law that says you should drive 25 or
less?
You are apparently assuming that most people do what is right, I disagree.
I DO believe that someone who will make the right choice will not be
bothered by a law that makes others do what is right.

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.

Many people don't get drunk and drive but it is still illegal, *even for
those who don't drink*.
Many people won't steal but it's still illegal *even for those who would
never steal*.
Does making an action illegal make any difference to those who would never
commit the action?


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? 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?

It doesn't matter whether they are just waiting for the opportunity,
removing the opportunity provides protection to those who need it.
It won't affect the honest and upright. It's important to me because it
affects me and will affect my children. I want the same protection for my
sons that would be afforded to my daughters (if I'd had any).



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.

Sure you do. That you would not rob or steal does not invalidate the fact
that it is illegal for YOU to do so. You don't even think about the fact
that it is illegal for you to steal because you wouldn't do it anyway.
However, some, in fact many, would. While you would not steal, the law
protects your property whether you think about it or not.
Would you pay the mother of your husband's child the same amount if not
forced by law or would you rather actually support the child in question?
Would you pay the same income tax if not forced by law?
Without a law permitting it, (actually a Constitutional amendment which is
a law) you could not vote.
If you stop at a stop sign even when you can see there is no other
traffic, you are only obeying the law because there is no *other* reason
to stop.
The laws affect you every day of your life and in most of the things you
do, even if you don't actually think about it and despite the fact that
you would not do othewise even without a law.






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. 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?

Take your pick. Either men should have options that are equal to that of
women or women should have responsibilty equal to that of men.



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.

Too bad it is only for such a small section of society.
The rest of the country apparently hasn't changed.

I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The fact
is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal and what is
not because I live my life by a moral code that goes beyond what legal says
is ok. I think the vast majority of people are the same way. The law
against murder is not something that I even think about even when I am angry
at someone because it is not something it would occur to me to do. My dad
always said that the laws are in place to protect honest people from people
who, without the lawe, would harm them. I see that with child support
issues, too. Most people will never be harmed by these laws. 50% of
marriages are still successful, and, of those who divorce, not all use the
system--only some do. Had we known about my husband's daughter earlier, we
would undoubtedly have sought custody. That is probably why they waited so
long--they wanted the CS back to birth with no fear of losing custody. To
bad they got caught out when the law changed to only permit arrearages 2
years back from proof of paternity. The law worked *for* us that time.
Would we have paid the same amount? Certainly not to the mother--but
undoubtedly we would have provided more to her ourselves. As it was, when
she asked for something, we had to tell her to ask her mother to pay for it
from the child support--we couldn't do both.

I think that the people who grab our attention most of the time are the
selfish, the greedy, the victim wannabes. But I think that the vast
majority of people are good, kind, caring, and honest. Unfortunately, it
seems to be the government's job to beat those traits out of people. I
don't want to live and die by the letter of the law. I far prefer the
spirit of the law--and I think that most everyone else does, too. I thinkt
it's tragic that you and your children missed so much of each other during
their growing up years because their mother was weak and chose greed over
good. But that is what the system teaches.

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


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.

One cannot be held accountable for that which they have not said. That you
find quotes to be "stupid
little word tap=dance games" does not change this fact.
As for the answer to my question: Strike three, you're OUT!

You go ahead and be the liar you are, Chris. You cannot even be honest with
yourself. No wonder you live in such a bitter little world. If it is up to
the likes of you to change the current CS system into something more fair
and equitable, theis old world is SOL. So play your silly little word games
with yourself--you seem to be the only one you have convinced of anything
anyway. Liars are worse than CS whores as far as I'm concerned.

It may be time to restate this issue and put it in context.

The issue is post-conception reproductive choice. Right now, in the
U.S., women have several versions of this choice:
(1) They can unilaterally choose to abort pregnancies.
(2) They can unilaterally choose to let the child be born, and keep the
child.
(3) They can let the child be born, and then use the newborn dropoff laws
that exist in some states, and that allow newborn babies to be dropped off
at designated locations, no questions asked.
(4) Or women can choose to let the child be born, and then give it up for
adoption--through procedures that in theory allow fathers some say in the
matter, but as a practical matter make it very easy for the mother to make a
unilateral decision by, for example, saying that she does not know who the
father is, or by moving some distance away from the father, so that he may
not even know that the child was born.

Women have all these choices, but the man in question has none. He must
simply pay the bill for the choice that the woman has made, via so-called
"child support."

It would be perfectly possible for the man to have post-conception
reproductive choice. He could be allowed, in cases of unwanted (to him)
pregnancies, to renounce his paternal rights and responsibilities.

This issue has been debated at regular intervals throughout the many
years that I have been following this news group. The feminist objection to
giving men choice in this matter supposedly has been based on biology (that
women are the only sex that can get pregnant, and therefore it's perfectly
OK that they should be able to make unilateral choices). The problem about
this argument is that Mother Nature--or biology--allows men to walk away
from unwanted pregnancies. So, if the issue is to be decided by biology,
why should men be denied the choice that biology has given them?

Of course, the current situation is not based on any kind of principle,
least of all on the notion of equal rights. Instead, it's based on the
crude reality that, in matters where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict, men always lose, because they have never found a way of organizing
to defend their interests. Consequently, politicians and judges pay no
attention to the views of men when those views conflict with those of women.


"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"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.

I prefer the other direction in that parents, regardless their sex be
responsible for the children they create and if actually unable to
actually care for them, to pay someone else to do so. Meaning that no one
gets to just walk away from their responsibility.

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.

As long as none of it is dependent on one's sex, which is the way it is
currently done for both reproduction choices and custody.
I heavily disagree with any parent simply abandoning an infant, mother or
father.
Interestingly, one of the arguments for the current system of child
support is that it keeps the state from having to pay for this unwanted
child yet these same people (feminists) demand that women be allowed to
abandon any unwanted children, leaving them for the state to finance and
no one seems to catch that they are talking out of both sides of their
mouths on this issue (and others).
Phil #3

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

..
..
"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
...

"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.

Of course not. We live in a highly feminized society where women are
given special legal abilities without the same responsibility that men
have. This includes more than reproductive rights and includes criminal
charges, divorce, custody, child support, the armed forces, jobs, sexual
harassment, etc.

About the only right men have that women lack is the right to walk around
topless. Woopty doo. You would be hard pressed to find any man who would not
be willing to keep his shirt on. But how many women would be willing to
trade THEIR rights?


I can, however, see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It
is going to be a long and bloody battle. We need to fight for rights
for men in several areas.

I see no major changes, only individual skirmishes won that carry no
meaning in the overall war.

Absolutely. Things are only continuing to get worse. You will always have
the dreamers who claim that if "you" don't get the ball rolling, how can you
expect anyone else to; that it will never change unless someone initiates
change. Of course every pocket incident IS an initiation for change. We see
how much good that's doing. Have you noticed that the biggest accusers of
doing nothing are "do nothings" themselves?


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!!

No argument from me there. Women should be held to the same standard as
men and visa versa but I don't believe it can happen in my lifetime.

It won't. Not so long as the system is run by insane people.





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. 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.

You allowed his voice to have meaning, the state didn't. Legally, he has
no position in the decision. What would have been the result had you
discovered an unplanned pregnancy and he definitely didn't want a child
but you 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?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?

Welcome to the club. She doesn't understand my analogies either.

I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women make.

Responsibility for choice is another concept she hasn't grasped.





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?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give up
the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't
become pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The
problem is that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned or
not but only women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does not
put any more responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for
the choices they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity on
the man.


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. 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**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in this
matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way, the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still
had legal options.

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.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.
Many women change their minds and disregard their husband's wishes. What
*you* would do doesn't help those men at all.

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.

This NG exists because many would and do.

Indeed! It is tantamount to alt.rape.

I sometimes wonder which is the larger number; those who do right or
those who are greedy and selfish.

Honor still means something to most people.

I'm not sure I agree. I think greed and false pride has replaced honor.

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.

People don't care as long as they have "reality TV shows" like "Biggest
Loser", "Survivor" until reality shows up on their doorstep. I was the
same way.


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.

You have far more faith in people than I.

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."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they make
and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have no legal
options beyond conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is giving men the
same or similar options, which even out the responsibility or remove the
special options of women putting them on the same plane.

Oh, we can't have THAT, because it would be
.................................... fair.



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.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not allowed
to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal, we
don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.





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.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street should be more important than the law that says you should drive
25 or less?
You are apparently assuming that most people do what is right, I
disagree. I DO believe that someone who will make the right choice will
not be bothered by a law that makes others do what is right.

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.

Many people don't get drunk and drive but it is still illegal, *even for
those who don't drink*.
Many people won't steal but it's still illegal *even for those who would
never steal*.
Does making an action illegal make any difference to those who would
never commit the action?


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? 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?

It doesn't matter whether they are just waiting for the opportunity,
removing the opportunity provides protection to those who need it.
It won't affect the honest and upright. It's important to me because it
affects me and will affect my children. I want the same protection for
my sons that would be afforded to my daughters (if I'd had any).



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.

Sure you do. That you would not rob or steal does not invalidate the
fact that it is illegal for YOU to do so. You don't even think about the
fact that it is illegal for you to steal because you wouldn't do it
anyway. However, some, in fact many, would. While you would not steal,
the law protects your property whether you think about it or not.
Would you pay the mother of your husband's child the same amount if not
forced by law or would you rather actually support the child in
question?
Would you pay the same income tax if not forced by law?
Without a law permitting it, (actually a Constitutional amendment which
is a law) you could not vote.
If you stop at a stop sign even when you can see there is no other
traffic, you are only obeying the law because there is no *other* reason
to stop.
The laws affect you every day of your life and in most of the things you
do, even if you don't actually think about it and despite the fact that
you would not do othewise even without a law.






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.
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?

Take your pick. Either men should have options that are equal to that of
women or women should have responsibilty equal to that of men.



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.

Too bad it is only for such a small section of society.
The rest of the country apparently hasn't changed.
Phil #3






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.

--
[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
...

snip

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.

You're the one who claims it does. So how about YOU back up your claim.

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

chuckle I have discovered that my children need clothing to wear and
food
to eat--and people get in big trouble fro shoplifting, so it is necessary
to
pay $$ at the store for these things. Now, I have a garden and plenty of
fruit trees, so I won't count those into the cost of caring for my
daughters. But I do not slaughter animals for meat or grow grains for
flour, nor do I have a milk cow, so there are still food items that must
be
purchased. And, although I di sew, fabric must still be purchased to
provide clothing, because, believe it or not, I do not raise sheep for the
wool or grow cotton.

The above proves NOTHING. It only explains how you choose to acquire what
your children need.



Barter? With whom? Please explain how, in this day and age in this
country, a person can support children with no money whatsoever. Do not
hark back to bygopne eras or point to other countries---today, in this
country.

People's ability to survive without money, as hard as this is for you to
believe, has not changed from place to place or time to time. Again, the
burden of proof rests with you to show why money is absolutely necessary for
survival.






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?

No, because neither of your above two allegations of what I said are
true.
I
never claimed that "no man anywhere should ever" have such
responsibility,
nor have I ever claimed that this is because they lack a uterus.

=====================
No, you claim it is because *only the woman* can make the decision as to
whether conception will result in childbirth. The reason *only the woman*
has been given that legal right is because the child grows in her body--in
her uterus (something that men lack).

Irrelevant why. The fact remains that I never made the claim that no man
anywhere should ever have any responsibility toward a child if he doesn't
want to, and that it is because he does not have a uterus.

You also deny the fact that a man and
a woman can decide together to have a child. You claim that only the
woman
makes that decision--and you base it on the *legal* issue, never seeming
to
comprehend that there are things that are far beyond the mere legal.
Such
as a committed couple deciding to have a child together.

But they can't. He can only express his desire. The decision whether or not
she gives birth rests with HER, not him; a fact incomprehensible by you.





And, since the final decision obviously
belongs to the one who will do the birthing, that means that men will
never
be responsible.

Correction: Since the final decision obviously belongs to the one who
will
do the birthing, that means that men "are not" responsible
"for such decision".


And that is just what I have been saying about you all along, Chris. You
feel that because men pnysically cannot give birth, they cannot be part of
the decision to have a child.

No I don't.

I disagree. You are wrong.




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.

Your point?

You feel that it is ok for men to abandon their children. You feel that
they have the *legal right* to do so, just because women have a *legal
right* to abortion. You compound evil with more evil.

And you spout more and more untruths about what I "feel"(claim?).

--
[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


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.

One cannot be held accountable for that which they have not said. That
you
find quotes to be "stupid
little word tap=dance games" does not change this fact.
As for the answer to my question: Strike three, you're OUT!

You go ahead and be the liar you are, Chris. You cannot even be honest
with
yourself. No wonder you live in such a bitter little world. If it is up
to
the likes of you to change the current CS system into something more fair
and equitable, theis old world is SOL. So play your silly little word
games
with yourself--you seem to be the only one you have convinced of anything
anyway. Liars are worse than CS whores as far as I'm concerned.

Ad hominem. Are you done?

--
[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.


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.

Of course not. We live in a highly feminized society where women are
given
special legal abilities without the same responsibility that men have.
This includes more than reproductive rights and includes criminal
charges,
divorce, custody, child support, the armed forces, jobs, sexual
harassment, etc.

I can, however, see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It
is
going to be a long and bloody battle. We need to fight for rights for
men
in several areas.

I see no major changes, only individual skirmishes won that carry no
meaning in the overall war.

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!!

No argument from me there. Women should be held to the same standard as
men and visa versa but I don't believe it can happen in my lifetime.




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.
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.

You allowed his voice to have meaning, the state didn't. Legally, he has
no position in the decision. What would have been the result had you
discovered an unplanned pregnancy and he definitely didn't want a child
but you 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?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the choices women make.




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?

I don't think women will ever be put on equal footing with men and for
several reasons, the primary one being it would require them to give up
the legal superiority they've managed to obtain. Still, women don't
become
pregnant by osmosis, superstition or religious beliefs. The problem is
that both parents are responsible for a pregnancy, planned or not but
only
women have a choice. Giving both the same choice does not put any more
responsibility on women, it just makes them responsible for the choices
they make and removes the ability to place responsiblity on the man.


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. 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**!!!

That doesn't answer the question. What legal options did he have in this
matter?

Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all??

Legally, no. The law only recognizes YOUR choice.
Morally, yes if you feel morally bound to honor his decision; either
way,
the law still recognizes your choice only.

He and I agreed. We BOTH made the commitment!

Together you agreed but only he was committed at conception, you still
had
legal options.

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.

It doesn't matter what you would or would not do, you had the legal
options that he lacked. THAT is the problem.
Many women change their minds and disregard their husband's wishes. What
*you* would do doesn't help those men at all.

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.

This NG exists because many would and do.
I sometimes wonder which is the larger number; those who do right or
those
who are greedy and selfish.

Honor still means something to most people.

I'm not sure I agree. I think greed and false pride has replaced honor.

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.

People don't care as long as they have "reality TV shows" like "Biggest
Loser", "Survivor" until reality shows up on their doorstep. I was the
same way.


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.

You have far more faith in people than I.

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."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the choices they make
and to the degree they are allowed to make them. Since men have no legal
options beyond conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is giving men the sa
me
or similar options, which even out the responsibility or remove the
special options of women putting them on the same plane.


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.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any bearing on all
those
who were legally bound to accept the choice they were not allowed to
make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would never steal, we
don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would not change
anything.





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.

So you're saying that your choice to drive 50 MPH in a residential
street
should be more important than the law that says you should drive 25 or
less?
You are apparently assuming that most people do what is right, I
disagree.
I DO believe that someone who will make the right choice will not be
bothered by a law that makes others do what is right.

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.

Many people don't get drunk and drive but it is still illegal, *even for
those who don't drink*.
Many people won't steal but it's still illegal *even for those who would
never steal*.
Does making an action illegal make any difference to those who would
never
commit the action?


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? 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?

It doesn't matter whether they are just waiting for the opportunity,
removing the opportunity provides protection to those who need it.
It won't affect the honest and upright. It's important to me because it
affects me and will affect my children. I want the same protection for
my
sons that would be afforded to my daughters (if I'd had any).



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.

Sure you do. That you would not rob or steal does not invalidate the
fact
that it is illegal for YOU to do so. You don't even think about the fact
that it is illegal for you to steal because you wouldn't do it anyway.
However, some, in fact many, would. While you would not steal, the law
protects your property whether you think about it or not.
Would you pay the mother of your husband's child the same amount if not
forced by law or would you rather actually support the child in
question?
Would you pay the same income tax if not forced by law?
Without a law permitting it, (actually a Constitutional amendment which
is
a law) you could not vote.
If you stop at a stop sign even when you can see there is no other
traffic, you are only obeying the law because there is no *other* reason
to stop.
The laws affect you every day of your life and in most of the things you
do, even if you don't actually think about it and despite the fact that
you would not do othewise even without a law.






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.
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?

Take your pick. Either men should have options that are equal to that of
women or women should have responsibilty equal to that of men.



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.

Too bad it is only for such a small section of society.
The rest of the country apparently hasn't changed.

I'm just going to answer this all right here rather than inline. The fact
is that most days I don't even stop to think about what is legal and what
is
not because I live my life by a moral code that goes beyond what legal
says
is ok. I think the vast majority of people are the same way. The law
against murder is not something that I even think about even when I am
angry
at someone because it is not something it would occur to me to do. My dad
always said that the laws are in place to protect honest people from
people
who, without the lawe, would harm them. I see that with child support
issues, too. Most people will never be harmed by these laws. 50% of
marriages are still successful, and, of those who divorce, not all use the
system--only some do. Had we known about my husband's daughter earlier,
we
would undoubtedly have sought custody. That is probably why they waited
so
long--they wanted the CS back to birth with no fear of losing custody. To
bad they got caught out when the law changed to only permit arrearages 2
years back from proof of paternity. The law worked *for* us that time.

Just think; if it went back ten years, then it would have worked for you
FIVE times as well!


Would we have paid the same amount? Certainly not to the mother--but
undoubtedly we would have provided more to her ourselves. As it was, when
she asked for something, we had to tell her to ask her mother to pay for
it
from the child support--we couldn't do both.

I think that the people who grab our attention most of the time are the
selfish, the greedy, the victim wannabes. But I think that the vast
majority of people are good, kind, caring, and honest. Unfortunately, it
seems to be the government's job to beat those traits out of people. I
don't want to live and die by the letter of the law. I far prefer the
spirit of the law--and I think that most everyone else does, too. I
thinkt
it's tragic that you and your children missed so much of each other during
their growing up years because their mother was weak and chose greed over
good. But that is what the system teaches.

Indeed. The system teaches that an elite group gets to have choice without
responsibility, and the other group gets to have responsibility without
choice. And it's people who hold the same values that you do who perpetuate
such wickedness!