TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result
of an
adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in
the
position
of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this
politician
saying
CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth
should
be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is
the
mother
who
gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct
outside
of
a
relationship or with multiple partners and
believe the
biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate
for
the
status
quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the
true
bio-dad
to
be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which
seems to
be
very
common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being
married
and
the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an
intentional
party
to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the
identity
of
the
biological father and the putative father should
be
empowered
to
sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued,
unless he
was
a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer
the
financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the
woman
would
still
get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit,
too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that
the
bio-dad
may
be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the
encounter(s).
If
it
can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's
fraud,
he
is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he
is
certainly
not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother
be
allowed
to
1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the
intentional
fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear.
I
think
we
all
know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being
bio
dad,
then
it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will
be
held
responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are
held
responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change
in the
way
things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give
birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know
that I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio
kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like
it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children
into the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law
is in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription
does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay
child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an
assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom.
Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof
rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what
is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part
of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should
be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral
decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by
state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the
choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody
and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers
deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do.

Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
..

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any
authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be
the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision.
Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk
away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth
or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a
monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or
similar rights as women or neither do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability
to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off
rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a
man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3
children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children.
Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth"
argument to negate a decade of parenting.

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

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

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message

m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message

...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of
an
adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the
position
of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this
politician
saying
CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth
should
be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the
mother
who
gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct
outside
of
a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe
the
biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate
for
the
status
quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true
bio-dad
to
be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems
to
be
very
common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being
married
and
the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an
intentional
party
to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the
identity
of
the
biological father and the putative father should be
empowered
to
sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless
he
was
a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer
the
financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman
would
still
get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the
bio-dad
may
be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the
encounter(s).
If
it
can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's
fraud,
he
is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is
certainly
not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be
allowed
to
1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the
intentional
fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I
think
we
all
know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio
dad,
then
it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be
held
responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are
held
responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in
the
way
things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know
that
I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into
the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is
in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay
child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an
assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof
rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.

My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question is
whose feelings trump whose, and why?
Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class.
Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen when it
comes to fire.
Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both blue
AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing green
grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy it.

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

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

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what
is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any
authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be
the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision.
Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and
walk
away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the
birth
or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a
monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or
similar rights as women or neither do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability
to decide not to be parents as mothers have,

They gonna force an abortion?

and the same newborn drop off
rights.

Swipe the kid from the mother and dump it off at the local firestation.

However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a
man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3
children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children.
Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth"
argument to negate a decade of parenting.

You're just hung up on past events. Problem is, such events have absolutely
NO bearing on rights/responsibilities. That'd be like saying if I knock on
your door every day for one year, hand you a hundred dollar bill, then walk
away, on day 366 I am obligated to give you another hundred dollar bill!

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message

m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message

...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of
an
adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in
the
position
of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this
politician
saying
CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth
should
be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is
the
mother
who
gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct
outside
of
a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe
the
biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate
for
the
status
quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the
true
bio-dad
to
be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems
to
be
very
common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being
married
and
the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an
intentional
party
to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the
identity
of
the
biological father and the putative father should be
empowered
to
sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued,
unless
he
was
a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer
the
financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the
woman
would
still
get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the
bio-dad
may
be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the
encounter(s).
If
it
can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's
fraud,
he
is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is
certainly
not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother
be
allowed
to
1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the
intentional
fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I
think
we
all
know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio
dad,
then
it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will
be
held
responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are
held
responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in
the
way
things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give
birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know
that
I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio
kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like
it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into
the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is
in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription
does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay
child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an
assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof
rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.

My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question is
whose feelings trump whose, and why?
Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class.
Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen when
it
comes to fire.
Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both blue
AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing green
grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy
it.

We've had this discussion. Married couples who choose to bring children
into the world are bound by the responsibility to provide for those
children. The RIGHTS need to be straightened out--that's where the current
system is so messed up. But one cannot just shrug off the responsibility of
parenthood because he is tired of it.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently
in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such
an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as
what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on
the part of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers
should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their
unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age
varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she
has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee
of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice.
Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither
do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same
ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same
newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a
man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year
marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER
toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to
bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting.


I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using
children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is
atrocious behavior to me.
That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but
fiscal matters, he does have a point.
Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over
the situation (choice).
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what
is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part
of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should
be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral
decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by
state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the
choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody
and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers
deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same
ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn
drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man,
because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage
which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those
children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception
to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting.


I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using
children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is
atrocious behavior to me.
That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but
fiscal matters, he does have a point.
Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the
situation (choice).

But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary can
abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When
fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other fathers
that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a
situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't
change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to
support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the
fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents.

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

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

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently
in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what
is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the
part
of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers
should
be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral
decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by
state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the
choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of
custody
and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers
deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same
ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same
newborn
drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man,
because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage
which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward
those
children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring
conception
to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting.


I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using
children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is
atrocious behavior to me.
That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but
fiscal matters, he does have a point.
Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over
the
situation (choice).

But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary
can
abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When
fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other
fathers
that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a
situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't
change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to
support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the
fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents.

Straw man AND slippery-sope.
The man no longer being penalized for a choice he is incapable of making
TOTALLY fixes such inequity! No one is saying anything about being
"disposable"; except YOU. No one is mentioning anything about "fixing"
something. The ONLY issue is whether or not 2 and 2 is adding up to 4; and
with the "child support" folks it does not. TO say that fathers will STILL
have money extorted from them is to say that nothing has changed. Is someone
advocating that?

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

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

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message

m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message

m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message

...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result
of
an
adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in
the
position
of
bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this
politician
saying
CS
money
is more important than factual reality and truth
should
be
ignored
when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is
the
mother
who
gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct
outside
of
a
relationship or with multiple partners and
believe
the
biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate
for
the
status
quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the
true
bio-dad
to
be
the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which
seems
to
be
very
common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being
married
and
the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an
intentional
party
to
the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the
identity
of
the
biological father and the putative father should
be
empowered
to
sue
the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued,
unless
he
was
a
party
to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer
the
financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the
woman
would
still
get
off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit,
too.

I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that
the
bio-dad
may
be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the
encounter(s).
If
it
can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's
fraud,
he
is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he
is
certainly
not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother
be
allowed
to
1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the
intentional
fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear.
I
think
we
all
know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being
bio
dad,
then
it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will
be
held
responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are
held
responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change
in
the
way
things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give
birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know
that
I
do
not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris.

Just what do you understand about the law?

I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all.

"Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS!

But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio
kids
should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like
it
because
it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children
into
the
world."
I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law
is
in
the
other.

According to their law, I could not be MORE fair.

chuckle You wish

Correction: I KNOW!
But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription
does
not
ring
fair with their law.

If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay
child
support?

Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an
assumption.
Not
to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are
simply
renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom.
Now,
since
the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof
rests
with YOU.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what
is
happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of
either gender.

My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question
is
whose feelings trump whose, and why?
Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class.
Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen
when
it
comes to fire.
Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both
blue
AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing
green
grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy
it.

We've had this discussion. Married couples who choose to bring children
into the world are bound by the responsibility to provide for those
children.

This would be true IF your assumption were true; but it's not. ONLY women
make such choice.

The RIGHTS need to be straightened out--that's where the current
system is so messed up. But one cannot just shrug off the responsibility
of
parenthood because he is tired of it.

One (he) does NOT have such responsibility in the first place.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip
.

You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to
walk
away
from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward
those
children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently
in
place,
I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system.

But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the
missing
part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such
an
arrangement by their system. It simply follows.

No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as
what
is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the
part
of either gender.

Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with
any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers
should
be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral
decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by
state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the
choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of
custody
and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers
deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do.

I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same
ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same
newborn
drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man,
because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage
which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward
those
children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring
conception
to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting.


I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using
children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is
atrocious behavior to me.
That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but
fiscal matters, he does have a point.
Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over
the
situation (choice).

But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary
can
abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When
fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other
fathers
that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a
situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't
change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them
to
support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the
fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents.

Straw man AND slippery-sope.
The man no longer being penalized for a choice he is incapable of making
TOTALLY fixes such inequity!

You are WRONG, Chris!! The man may not have carried the child in his womb
and brought it to birth, but he CHOSE to be a parent to that child evey bit
as much as the mother did. If we are talking about unmarried parents,
shortly after the birth of the child, it is one thing--but to use the same
reason to let a father of teenagers walk away with no responsibility is
ridiculous!!

No one is saying anything about being
"disposable"; except YOU. No one is mentioning anything about "fixing"
something. The ONLY issue is whether or not 2 and 2 is adding up to 4; and
with the "child support" folks it does not. TO say that fathers will STILL
have money extorted from them is to say that nothing has changed. Is
someone
advocating that?

YOU are advocating fathers beingdisposable--YOU are saying that because they
do not have wombs, they are free to walk away whenever they want to. YOU,
Chris, and saying that fathers are not important.