TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an accurate
one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not only that,
but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the child to care
for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted the driver to
drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal issues of their
own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal responsibility
for the child either. If she aborts, he has no responsibility. If she
legally abandons, he has no responsibility. If she does not tell him
about the child and adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So it
isn't as if the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't get
stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get stopped,
the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be allowed to
determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just don't agree
that having men actively campaign for zero responsibility for their children
is going to solve the problem. I do believe that a better alternative is to
actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint custody as the default, with no money
changing hands.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them, it
was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That means
you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact that his
choice and your choice were identical means nothing in regard to which
of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the choice
totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our children. And no
law is going to change that. And both of us know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created my
last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes, I lost
him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the decision to change
"OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good marriage until she
discovered how much she could force me to pay her to divorce me. Oddly,
this all came about just at the end of my term of paying "child support"
to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but millions of women
ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million dollars and ended my
relationship with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be made to
stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had agreed to have
and raise this child--there is no way it was right for you to be forced into
the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is no way it was right for her to get
all the family pictures, hugs and kisses, Christmas gifts made by a small
child's hands, and nenories. Women should have to keep their commitments
the same as men do!



In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have met
the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law". Few
people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and judges
until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because of the
propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in the best
interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it is without
bothering to check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused
of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of which
is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any choice
of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody, insisting
on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I think that the
studies showing the importance of fathers in their children's lives are
making inroads. There is more public awareness than there was, and we
need to keep that going. And it would be nice if those who were for
equal parenting and equal responsibility could get organized, and keep
out the nutjobs on the fringes of both sides of the issue so we could
really make some progress!! I think that the rising importance of
fathers will take care of the majority of the imbalance--including the
"right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a pregnancy
is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual intercourse and
should apply equally, as far as biologically possible, to each parent.
Both should have equal responsibility and equal options but neither should
be able to just do away with the pregnancy or child by abortion or turning
their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings to
light the disparity that currently exists between men and women. Since
women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to choose their
degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to a zero degree of
responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of wanting to have and
raise children, it would only limit their responsiblilty to equal their
legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad" image that
needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody shows that the man is
not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants to parent his children.


So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by sharing
our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on the
subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring about the
necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers being
shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making women
totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not actually the
optimal solution but it points out the problem very well. If all it does
is gain attention and/or make people think independently, it will have
achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do. They should also have
default 50/50 custody if they do want to be fathers. But I cannot agree to
such abandonment of older children. That is like saying to the children "I
just don't ant you any more." Once you have set off on the course of
raising children that you have chosed to raise, you should not have the
right to abandon them. Nor should the government have the right to take
them from you. Were I a judge, rather than assigning more child support to
the parent who had the child for less time, I would say "If you want 80%
custody, and only want him to have 20%, then you are responsible for 80% of
the child's needs, and he is only responsible for 20%." Beth that would set
a few people back on their heels!

"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...
[snip]

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created
my
last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes, I
lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the decision
to
change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good marriage
until
she discovered how much she could force me to pay her to divorce me.
Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term of paying
"child
support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but
millions
of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million
dollars
and ended my relationship with my child.

That's one free house; and a NICE one in most parts! And these women
STILL
cry what a dirtbag their santa claus is.....


Actually, we were upside down on the house so she "gave me" the house in
the divorce (which was lost due to not being able to suddenly pay for
two households) and took everything IN the house, including the fridge,
washer/dryer, freezer almost all the furniture (but not the payments on
them) and the one unmortgaged car. The quarter-million was the amount in
cash that I was forced to give to her (that she was not forced to, nor
did she spend on our son) and not including the amounts spent for
medical, glasses, dental or the twice monthly travel I alone was forced
to endure for "visiting" my child or the amounts spent directly on him.
She really set it up well.

[snip]
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it out he has no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets off and the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't
get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero responsibility for
their children is going to solve the problem. I do believe that a
better alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint custody as
the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to the
point that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of course
no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women want sole
custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices, changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did NOT
get to choose their piece.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of
family law. I can find many problems that are just as important in
other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire.
That means you had other options, he was left with your choice. The
fact that his choice and your choice were identical means nothing
in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have
been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the
choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both of us know
it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes,
I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the
decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good
marriage until she discovered how much she could force me to pay her
to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term
of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are
dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a
quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be made
to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had agreed
to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right for you to
be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is no way it was
right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and kisses,
Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and nenories. Women
should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the situation,
primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows the truth.
When the matra is "in the best interests of the children", most
seem to actually believe it is without bothering to check. When
someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is the way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be
nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal responsibility
could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of both
sides of the issue so we could really make some progress!! I think
that the rising importance of fathers will take care of the majority
of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away with the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings
to light the disparity that currently exists between men and women.
Since women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to
choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to
a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of
wanting to have and raise children, it would only limit their
responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody shows
that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants to
parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who were
simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to be an
equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had the
mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options, one of
which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a time of her
choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility for
one's actions. Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make
damn sure they don't become one and failing that should either be a
parent in every sense of the word or pay someone else to take care of
the problem they created. Allowing either or both parents the ability to
just walk away forces YOU and ME to pay for their "accidents" while they
continue making other problems that we will be responsible to handle for
them.

They should also have default 50/50 custody if they do want to be
fathers. But I cannot agree to such abandonment of older children.
That is like saying to the children "I just don't ant you any more."
Once you have set off on the course of raising children that you have
chosed to raise, you should not have the right to abandon them. Nor
should the government have the right to take them from you. Were I a
judge, rather than assigning more child support to the parent who had
the child for less time, I would say "If you want 80% custody, and only
want him to have 20%, then you are responsible for 80% of the child's
needs, and he is only responsible for 20%." Beth that would set a few
people back on their heels!

I don't disagree with the stipulation that 50/50 is the default AND is
treated that way by the courts in regard to custody, control AND C$.
Forcing parents to either BE a parent or pay others to take over their
responsibility is the same thing as I mentioned above where I opposed
allowing parents to just abandon the child they created.
I also think there is merit in allowing either parent to decide what is
best then let the other parent choose.
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not. Not
only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has the
child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger permitted
the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves with some legal
issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal responsibility
for the child either. If she aborts, he has no responsibility. If she
legally abandons, he has no responsibility. If she does not tell him
about the child and adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So
it isn't as if the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't get
stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero responsibility for their
children is going to solve the problem. I do believe that a better
alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint custody as the
default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of paying
child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to the point
that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of course no one
seems to notice that this logic also means that women want sole custody
just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices, changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did NOT get
to choose their piece.

As a teacher, one of the things I have been seeing more and more is
*fathers* taking part in school activities. When I first started teaching,
mothers came to conferences, mothers chaperoned field trips, mothers came to
the classroom programs, mothers picked up the children if they became ill at
school. But these days, fathers are filling those roles more and more.
Fathers and mothers are sharing the caretaking parts of parenthood more than
ever before. Just last week I wrote a letter to a judge for a father who is
seeking shared custody of his children, and it looks as if he is going to
get it. My daughter has a good friend whose father has managed to keep
50/50 custody for the past 12 years, despite the mothers attempts to get
that changed. The tides *are* turning. Being a father is being recognized
socially now--rather than just being a breadwinner. I think the feminists
are about to shoot themselves in the foot with their "he only wants to pay
less child support" bleatings. It has become very obvious that fathers are
not only equally capable of caring ofr their children, but equally involved
with their children.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women have
choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was speaking about
the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of family law. I can
find many problems that are just as important in other areas but that
isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them, it
was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire. That
means you had other options, he was left with your choice. The fact
that his choice and your choice were identical means nothing in regard
to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have been
discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the choice
totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our children. And
no law is going to change that. And both of us know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created my
last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes, I
lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the decision to
change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good marriage until
she discovered how much she could force me to pay her to divorce me.
Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term of paying "child
support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but millions
of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million dollars
and ended my relationship with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be made to
stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had agreed to have
and raise this child--there is no way it was right for you to be forced
into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is no way it was right for
her to get all the family pictures, hugs and kisses, Christmas gifts made
by a small child's hands, and nenories. Women should have to keep their
commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We have
met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in "family law".
Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of legislators and
judges until they find themselves in the situation, primarily because
of the propaganda that overshadows the truth. When the matra is "in
the best interests of the children", most seem to actually believe it
is without bothering to check. When someone points out the facts, they
are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that saying
that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way to go. I
think that holding *women* more accountable is the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of which
is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks any choice
of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be nice
if those who were for equal parenting and equal responsibility could
get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of both sides of
the issue so we could really make some progress!! I think that the
rising importance of fathers will take care of the majority of the
imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically possible,
to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and equal options
but neither should be able to just do away with the pregnancy or child
by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings to
light the disparity that currently exists between men and women. Since
women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to choose
their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to a zero
degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of wanting
to have and raise children, it would only limit their responsiblilty to
equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad" image
that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody shows that the
man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants to parent his
children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative changes
to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans mounted a
nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who were simply
trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to be an equal parent
to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud committed
against your husband, and by extention to you and your children, resulted
in an arrearage that would not have occurred had the mother been honest in
the first place. She had all the options, one of which was to hand fiscal
responsiblity to your husband at a time of her choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on the
subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring about the
necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers being
shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making women
totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not actually the
optimal solution but it points out the problem very well. If all it does
is gain attention and/or make people think independently, it will have
achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility for
one's actions.

But I think if BOTH have equal safe haven rights, we will see far fewer
pregnancies. If you knew that someone else would be paying for the gas no
matter how expensive it got, you might not be as careful in chosing a car
that got good gas mileage. One of those big, flashy SUVs would be a
consideration. But, since you know you will be paying for 100% of your own
gasoline, a car with excellent gas mileage is a much better choice. Or
maybe even a bicycle.

Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make damn
sure they don't become one and failing that should either be a parent in
every sense of the word or pay someone else to take care of the problem
they created. Allowing either or both parents the ability to just walk
away forces YOU and ME to pay for their "accidents" while they continue
making other problems that we will be responsible to handle for them.

IF men have the same safe haven rights as women, and the women **know**
they will not be able to pick the man's pocket for 18+ years, we might see a
great decrease in the "accidental" pregnancy rate. Right now they know that
they will be supported. I don't think tazpayers should pick up the tab at
all. If the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to support it.
If she can't, put the child in foster care and give her 6 months to prove
she can support the child byt getting a place to live and a job to pay for
it. If she cannot meet that standard, adopt the child out to a family who
can. There are endless lists of couples wanting to adopt. Watch how fast
the birth rate drops.


They should also have default 50/50 custody if they do want to be fathers.
But I cannot agree to such abandonment of older children. That is like
saying to the children "I just don't ant you any more." Once you have set
off on the course of raising children that you have chosed to raise, you
should not have the right to abandon them. Nor should the government have
the right to take them from you. Were I a judge, rather than assigning
more child support to the parent who had the child for less time, I would
say "If you want 80% custody, and only want him to have 20%, then you are
responsible for 80% of the child's needs, and he is only responsible for
20%." Beth that would set a few people back on their heels!

I don't disagree with the stipulation that 50/50 is the default AND is
treated that way by the courts in regard to custody, control AND C$.
Forcing parents to either BE a parent or pay others to take over their
responsibility is the same thing as I mentioned above where I opposed
allowing parents to just abandon the child they created.
I also think there is merit in allowing either parent to decide what is
best then let the other parent choose.

Absolutely. Anything that keeps both parents actively involved in the
child's life withou money being a major point of contention.

"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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility. If she does not tell him about the child and
adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So it isn't as if
the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver
didn't get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they
did get stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver
would be allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just
don't agree that having men actively campaign for zero
responsibility for their children is going to solve the problem. I
do believe that a better alternative is to actively campaign ofr
50/50 joint custody as the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to
the point that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of
course no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women
want sole custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation, along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices,
changes would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did
NOT get to choose their piece.

As a teacher, one of the things I have been seeing more and more is
*fathers* taking part in school activities. When I first started
teaching, mothers came to conferences, mothers chaperoned field trips,
mothers came to the classroom programs, mothers picked up the children
if they became ill at school. But these days, fathers are filling
those roles more and more. Fathers and mothers are sharing the
caretaking parts of parenthood more than ever before. Just last week
I wrote a letter to a judge for a father who is seeking shared custody
of his children, and it looks as if he is going to get it. My
daughter has a good friend whose father has managed to keep 50/50
custody for the past 12 years, despite the mothers attempts to get
that changed. The tides *are* turning. Being a father is being
recognized socially now--rather than just being a breadwinner. I
think the feminists are about to shoot themselves in the foot with
their "he only wants to pay less child support" bleatings. It has
become very obvious that fathers are not only equally capable of
caring ofr their children, but equally involved with their children.

One of our opinions is wrong and I hope it is mine. I have seen a few
instances where fathers are permitted to fully be a parent but this
doesn't appear to be much changed over the past 40+ years; there have
always been exceptions to the 'mother-only' mindset. Perhaps there are
more that previously but it's nowhere near being the rule.
Feminists, when their actions and words get in the way, tend to try to
deny history. In the 60's, I observed filmed news reports of groups of
women gathering to burn their bras. (It was amusing to people then)
Today, baby feminists deny it ever happened and have called me a liar
when I report first-hand accounting. This will be handled no
differently should it blow up in their faces.



snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities
of family law. I can find many problems that are just as
important in other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and
your husband deciding to have a child was that you had options
beyond conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any
of them, it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his
desire. That means you had other options, he was left with your
choice. The fact that his choice and your choice were identical
means nothing in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the
problem I have been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't
agree that, because that choice is legally available, that makes
the choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both of us
know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and
purposes, I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID
make the decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought
was a good marriage until she discovered how much she could force
me to pay her to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the
end of my term of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not
saying YOU are dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case,
it cost me a quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship
with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be
made to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had
agreed to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right
for you to be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is
no way it was right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and
kisses, Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and nenories.
Women should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the
situation, primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows
the truth. When the matra is "in the best interests of the
children", most seem to actually believe it is without bothering
to check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused of
sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is the way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads.
I think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in
their children's lives are making inroads. There is more public
awareness than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it
would be nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on
the fringes of both sides of the issue so we could really make
some progress!! I think that the rising importance of fathers
will take care of the majority of the imbalance--including the
"right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away with the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just
brings to light the disparity that currently exists between men and
women. Since women currently have 100% of all options with the
ability to choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by
rights, held to a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make
them incapable of wanting to have and raise children, it would only
limit their responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody
shows that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants
to parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who
were simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to
be an equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting
the immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by
playing the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the
control they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had
the mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options,
one of which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a
time of her choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an
equal opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility
for one's actions.

But I think if BOTH have equal safe haven rights, we will see far
fewer pregnancies.

I heartily disagree. This would create more pregnancies and more
abortions because the women who abort now would continue to abort and
those who are currently trying to use a baby as a tool to get or keep a
man (or a paycheck) will see that vision evaporate, leading to more
abandoned and aborted babies.
To some, it is immoral to abort but not to abandon an infant. I can't
explain that but people seem to really be pscyhpathic in numbers that
are scary.
The ONLY thing that will help this situation (in my opinion) is that
they be held responsible for the results of their actions.

If you knew that someone else would be paying for the gas no matter how
expensive it got, you might not be as careful in chosing a car that got
good gas mileage. One of those big, flashy SUVs would be a
consideration. But, since you know you will be paying for 100% of your
own gasoline, a car with excellent gas mileage is a much better choice.
Or maybe even a bicycle.

This is applicable only if the government stops financing single
motherhood. As it is, the government will pay at least SOME of the
child's expenses if the mother keeps it and refuses to name the father.
If the father doesn't know of the birth (and sometimes even when he
does) she can just walk away if done early enough and pay nothing.


Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make
damn sure they don't become one and failing that should either be a
parent in every sense of the word or pay someone else to take care of
the problem they created. Allowing either or both parents the ability
to just walk away forces YOU and ME to pay for their "accidents"
while they continue making other problems that we will be responsible
to handle for them.

IF men have the same safe haven rights as women, and the women
**know** they will not be able to pick the man's pocket for 18+ years,
we might see a great decrease in the "accidental" pregnancy rate.

Perhaps but I fear some women are using the pregnancy/child as a tool to
get or keep a man independent of receiving goods and benefits the child
qualifies them to obtain.

Right now they know that they will be supported. I don't think
tazpayers should pick up the tab at all.

There are too many unadoptable babies now, especially minority ones.
This means that the taxpayer is supporting these children, which would
likely increase if both parents could abandon it. If the whole thing
increases, where do these adoptive parents come from that they aren't
coming from now? The government could force childless parents to adopt
at least one or two children I suppose, or the taxpayers can continue to
pay the tab.
I see it this way: man and women create a pregnancy, he walks, she
doesn't approve of abortion so she allows the birth to continue. Then
she walks out of the hospital leaving not only an infant for the
government to finance but also the hospital bill. If the baby is one of
the unadoptable ones, the child grows up in foster care, often being
used as a means to obtain funding by the government (which will pay
foster parents). Even if the baby is one of the prime adoptable babies,
the mountain of paperwork, lawyers and court rulings necessary for
adoption costs the taxpayer in addition to that of the adoptive
parent(s). With even more children needing homes, the regulations on
adoption will become lax, permitting even more unsavory people to adopt.


If the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to support it.
If she can't, put the child in foster care and give her 6 months to
prove she can support the child byt getting a place to live and a job
to pay for it.

And this, I feel, is a sure way to insure more abandoned children.
I say, when people's actions create other people, they should both be
held equally responsible, period. They should be equally responsible for
the costs associated with that child whether they raise the child or
not.

If she cannot meet that standard, adopt the child out to a family who
can. There are endless lists of couples wanting to adopt. Watch how
fast the birth rate drops.

What about those babies no one seems to want to accept, primarily black,
handicapped and those born drug addicted?
Even so, in 2005, 33% of all children in foster care were an expense to
the government for one to 11 months; 22% were in foster care for 12-23
months, 11% up to 36 months; 8% for 5 years or more. I think the birth
rate AND the rate of abandoned babies would both increase dramatically
of both could just choose to abandon their responsibility.

Phil #3



They should also have default 50/50 custody if they do want to be
fathers. But I cannot agree to such abandonment of older children.
That is like saying to the children "I just don't ant you any more."
Once you have set off on the course of raising children that you have
chosed to raise, you should not have the right to abandon them. Nor
should the government have the right to take them from you. Were I a
judge, rather than assigning more child support to the parent who had
the child for less time, I would say "If you want 80% custody, and
only want him to have 20%, then you are responsible for 80% of the
child's needs, and he is only responsible for 20%." Beth that would
set a few people back on their heels!

I don't disagree with the stipulation that 50/50 is the default AND
is treated that way by the courts in regard to custody, control AND
C$.
Forcing parents to either BE a parent or pay others to take over
their responsibility is the same thing as I mentioned above where I
opposed allowing parents to just abandon the child they created.
I also think there is merit in allowing either parent to decide what
is best then let the other parent choose.

Absolutely. Anything that keeps both parents actively involved in the
child's life withou money being a major point of contention.

--
[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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility. If she does not tell him about the child and
adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So it isn't as if
the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver
didn't get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they
did get stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver
would be allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just
don't agree that having men actively campaign for zero
responsibility for their children is going to solve the problem. I
do believe that a better alternative is to actively campaign ofr
50/50 joint custody as the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to
the point that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of
course no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women
want sole custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation, along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices,
changes would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did
NOT get to choose their piece.

As a teacher, one of the things I have been seeing more and more is
*fathers* taking part in school activities. When I first started
teaching, mothers came to conferences, mothers chaperoned field trips,
mothers came to the classroom programs, mothers picked up the children
if they became ill at school. But these days, fathers are filling
those roles more and more. Fathers and mothers are sharing the
caretaking parts of parenthood more than ever before. Just last week
I wrote a letter to a judge for a father who is seeking shared custody
of his children, and it looks as if he is going to get it. My
daughter has a good friend whose father has managed to keep 50/50
custody for the past 12 years, despite the mothers attempts to get
that changed. The tides *are* turning. Being a father is being
recognized socially now--rather than just being a breadwinner. I
think the feminists are about to shoot themselves in the foot with
their "he only wants to pay less child support" bleatings. It has
become very obvious that fathers are not only equally capable of
caring ofr their children, but equally involved with their children.

One of our opinions is wrong and I hope it is mine. I have seen a few
instances where fathers are permitted to fully be a parent but this
doesn't appear to be much changed over the past 40+ years; there have
always been exceptions to the 'mother-only' mindset. Perhaps there are
more that previously but it's nowhere near being the rule.
Feminists, when their actions and words get in the way, tend to try to
deny history. In the 60's, I observed filmed news reports of groups of
women gathering to burn their bras. (It was amusing to people then)
Today, baby feminists deny it ever happened and have called me a liar
when I report first-hand accounting. This will be handled no
differently should it blow up in their faces.



snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities
of family law. I can find many problems that are just as
important in other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and
your husband deciding to have a child was that you had options
beyond conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any
of them, it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his
desire. That means you had other options, he was left with your
choice. The fact that his choice and your choice were identical
means nothing in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the
problem I have been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't
agree that, because that choice is legally available, that makes
the choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both of us
know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and
purposes, I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID
make the decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought
was a good marriage until she discovered how much she could force
me to pay her to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the
end of my term of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not
saying YOU are dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case,
it cost me a quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship
with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be
made to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had
agreed to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right
for you to be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is
no way it was right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and
kisses, Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and nenories.
Women should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the
situation, primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows
the truth. When the matra is "in the best interests of the
children", most seem to actually believe it is without bothering
to check. When someone points out the facts, they are accused of
sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is the way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads.
I think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in
their children's lives are making inroads. There is more public
awareness than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it
would be nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on
the fringes of both sides of the issue so we could really make
some progress!! I think that the rising importance of fathers
will take care of the majority of the imbalance--including the
"right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away with the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just
brings to light the disparity that currently exists between men and
women. Since women currently have 100% of all options with the
ability to choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by
rights, held to a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make
them incapable of wanting to have and raise children, it would only
limit their responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody
shows that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants
to parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who
were simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to
be an equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting
the immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by
playing the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the
control they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had
the mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options,
one of which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a
time of her choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an
equal opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility
for one's actions.

But I think if BOTH have equal safe haven rights, we will see far
fewer pregnancies.

I heartily disagree. This would create more pregnancies and more
abortions because the women who abort now would continue to abort and
those who are currently trying to use a baby as a tool to get or keep a
man (or a paycheck) will see that vision evaporate, leading to more
abandoned and aborted babies.
To some, it is immoral to abort but not to abandon an infant. I can't
explain that but people seem to really be pscyhpathic in numbers that
are scary.
The ONLY thing that will help this situation (in my opinion) is that
they be held responsible for the results of their actions.

If you knew that someone else would be paying for the gas no matter how
expensive it got, you might not be as careful in chosing a car that got
good gas mileage. One of those big, flashy SUVs would be a
consideration. But, since you know you will be paying for 100% of your
own gasoline, a car with excellent gas mileage is a much better choice.
Or maybe even a bicycle.

This is applicable only if the government stops financing single
motherhood. As it is, the government will pay at least SOME of the
child's expenses if the mother keeps it and refuses to name the father.
If the father doesn't know of the birth (and sometimes even when he
does) she can just walk away if done early enough and pay nothing.


Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make
damn sure they don't become one and failing that should either be a
parent in every sense of the word or pay someone else to take care of
the problem they created. Allowing either or both parents the ability
to just walk away forces YOU and ME to pay for their "accidents"
while they continue making other problems that we will be responsible
to handle for them.

IF men have the same safe haven rights as women, and the women
**know** they will not be able to pick the man's pocket for 18+ years,
we might see a great decrease in the "accidental" pregnancy rate.

Perhaps but I fear some women are using the pregnancy/child as a tool to
get or keep a man independent of receiving goods and benefits the child
qualifies them to obtain.

Right now they know that they will be supported. I don't think
tazpayers should pick up the tab at all.

There are too many unadoptable babies now, especially minority ones.
This means that the taxpayer is supporting these children, which would
likely increase if both parents could abandon it. If the whole thing
increases, where do these adoptive parents come from that they aren't
coming from now? The government could force childless parents to adopt
at least one or two children I suppose, or the taxpayers can continue to
pay the tab.
I see it this way: man and women create a pregnancy, he walks, she
doesn't approve of abortion so she allows the birth to continue. Then
she walks out of the hospital leaving not only an infant for the
government to finance but also the hospital bill. If the baby is one of
the unadoptable ones, the child grows up in foster care, often being
used as a means to obtain funding by the government (which will pay
foster parents). Even if the baby is one of the prime adoptable babies,
the mountain of paperwork, lawyers and court rulings necessary for
adoption costs the taxpayer in addition to that of the adoptive
parent(s). With even more children needing homes, the regulations on
adoption will become lax, permitting even more unsavory people to adopt.


If the woman wants to keep the baby, she should be able to support it.
If she can't, put the child in foster care and give her 6 months to
prove she can support the child byt getting a place to live and a job
to pay for it.

And this, I feel, is a sure way to insure more abandoned children.
I say, when people's actions create other people, they should both be
held equally responsible, period.

Only ONE person's action creates another person; the woman giving birth.

They should be equally responsible for
the costs associated with that child whether they raise the child or
not.

If she cannot meet that standard, adopt the child out to a family who
can. There are endless lists of couples wanting to adopt. Watch how
fast the birth rate drops.

What about those babies no one seems to want to accept, primarily black,
handicapped and those born drug addicted?
Even so, in 2005, 33% of all children in foster care were an expense to
the government for one to 11 months; 22% were in foster care for 12-23
months, 11% up to 36 months; 8% for 5 years or more. I think the birth
rate AND the rate of abandoned babies would both increase dramatically
of both could just choose to abandon their responsibility.

Phil #3



They should also have default 50/50 custody if they do want to be
fathers. But I cannot agree to such abandonment of older children.
That is like saying to the children "I just don't ant you any more."
Once you have set off on the course of raising children that you have
chosed to raise, you should not have the right to abandon them. Nor
should the government have the right to take them from you. Were I a
judge, rather than assigning more child support to the parent who had
the child for less time, I would say "If you want 80% custody, and
only want him to have 20%, then you are responsible for 80% of the
child's needs, and he is only responsible for 20%." Beth that would
set a few people back on their heels!

I don't disagree with the stipulation that 50/50 is the default AND
is treated that way by the courts in regard to custody, control AND
C$.
Forcing parents to either BE a parent or pay others to take over
their responsibility is the same thing as I mentioned above where I
opposed allowing parents to just abandon the child they created.
I also think there is merit in allowing either parent to decide what
is best then let the other parent choose.

Absolutely. Anything that keeps both parents actively involved in the
child's life withou money being a major point of contention.

--
[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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it out he has no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets off and the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver didn't
get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero responsibility for
their children is going to solve the problem. I do believe that a
better alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint custody as
the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to the
point that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of course
no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women want sole
custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices, changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did NOT
get to choose their piece.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities of
family law. I can find many problems that are just as important in
other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire.
That means you had other options, he was left with your choice. The
fact that his choice and your choice were identical means nothing
in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have
been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the
choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both of us know
it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and purposes,
I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the
decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a good
marriage until she discovered how much she could force me to pay her
to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my term
of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are
dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a
quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be made
to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had agreed
to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right for you to
be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is no way it was
right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and kisses,
Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and nenories. Women
should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the situation,
primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows the truth.
When the matra is "in the best interests of the children", most
seem to actually believe it is without bothering to check. When
someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is the way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads. I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be
nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal responsibility
could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of both
sides of the issue so we could really make some progress!! I think
that the rising importance of fathers will take care of the majority
of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away with the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just brings
to light the disparity that currently exists between men and women.
Since women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to
choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held to
a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable of
wanting to have and raise children, it would only limit their
responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody shows
that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants to
parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who were
simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to be an
equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had the
mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options, one of
which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a time of her
choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility for
one's actions.

What action might that be?

Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make
damn sure they don't become one

Legal impossibility for a man, post-conception.

and failing that should either be a
parent in every sense of the word or pay someone else to take care of
the problem they created. Allowing either or both parents the ability to
just walk away forces YOU and ME to pay for their "accidents" while they
continue making other problems that we will be responsible to handle for
them.

They should also have default 50/50 custody if they do want to be
fathers. But I cannot agree to such abandonment of older children.
That is like saying to the children "I just don't ant you any more."
Once you have set off on the course of raising children that you have
chosed to raise, you should not have the right to abandon them. Nor
should the government have the right to take them from you. Were I a
judge, rather than assigning more child support to the parent who had
the child for less time, I would say "If you want 80% custody, and only
want him to have 20%, then you are responsible for 80% of the child's
needs, and he is only responsible for 20%." Beth that would set a few
people back on their heels!

I don't disagree with the stipulation that 50/50 is the default AND is
treated that way by the courts in regard to custody, control AND C$.

50/50 already is the default; at least according to the court people. They
simply change it because it
is in the "best interest" of the child to be with the mother. Nothing more
than a carbon copy charade being played out over and over in courts
throughout the land.

Forcing parents to either BE a parent or pay others to take over their
responsibility is the same thing as I mentioned above where I opposed
allowing parents to just abandon the child they created.
I also think there is merit in allowing either parent to decide what is
best then let the other parent choose.
Phil #3

"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
[snip]


And this, I feel, is a sure way to insure more abandoned children.
I say, when people's actions create other people, they should both be
held equally responsible, period.

Only ONE person's action creates another person; the woman giving
birth.

No, only one has the legal ability to determine if a pregnancy will be
allowed to develop but it takes both father and mother to create the
pregnancy.

[snip]
Phil #3

"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...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

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.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away." She
has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it out he has
no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets off and
the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver
didn't
get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if they did
get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver would be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned
a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has
the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just
don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero responsibility for
their children is going to solve the problem. I do believe that a
better alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint custody
as
the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda to
the
point that legislators are afraid of being labled anti-child. Of
course
no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women want
sole
custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices,
changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did
NOT
get to choose their piece.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities
of
family law. I can find many problems that are just as important
in
other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and
your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had options beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail any of
them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of his desire.
That means you had other options, he was left with your choice.
The
fact that his choice and your choice were identical means
nothing
in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the problem I have
been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't
agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that makes the
choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both of us
know
it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that
created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents and
purposes,
I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID make the
decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought was a
good
marriage until she discovered how much she could force me to pay
her
to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the end of my
term
of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not saying YOU are
dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case, it cost me a
quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship with my
child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be
made
to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had
agreed
to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right for you
to
be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is no way it
was
right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and kisses,
Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and nenories. Women
should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the
situation,
primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows the truth.
When the matra is "in the best interests of the children", most
seem to actually believe it is without bothering to check. When
someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

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.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the
way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is the
way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who
lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads.
I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more public
awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it would be
nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility
could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the fringes of
both
sides of the issue so we could really make some progress!! I
think
that the rising importance of fathers will take care of the
majority
of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility
and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away with the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just
brings
to light the disparity that currently exists between men and
women.
Since women currently have 100% of all options with the ability to
choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by rights, held
to
a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them incapable
of
wanting to have and raise children, it would only limit their
responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody
shows
that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who wants to
parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who
were
simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to be an
equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting
the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by
playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the
control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had
the
mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options, one
of
which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a time of
her
choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of
fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an
equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility
for
one's actions.

What action might that be?

In this case, being allowed to walk away from the child.


Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should make
damn sure they don't become one

Legal impossibility for a man, post-conception.

The time to insure one doesn't become a parent is before conception. At
that time, both are equal in reproductive options.

[snip]
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
news

"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
[snip]


And this, I feel, is a sure way to insure more abandoned children.
I say, when people's actions create other people, they should both be
held equally responsible, period.

Only ONE person's action creates another person; the woman giving
birth.

No, only one has the legal ability to determine if a pregnancy will be
allowed to develop but it takes both father and mother to create the
pregnancy.

Ah, but you said "people [person]".


[snip]
Phil #3