TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

I don't know what kind of sad, barren life you have lived, Chris, but my
husband and I decided together to have our 2 children. It may have been my
body that carried them until they were able to live outside the womb, but we
decided together to have them. How sad that you have not experienced such a
thing.


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.

So sad, so very, very sad.........

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves and a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in
the cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this
right to men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women
differently because of their sex.
The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from
which she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.
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
...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves and a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this right to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at
that point.****

The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one mentioned.

"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
...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves
and a sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is
a great probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a
child will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility,
which in the cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the
cake and also decide which slice they wanted. He just expounded the
extension of this right to men, which exposes the problem of treating
men and women differently because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried
couples--I think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a
child and expect the man to support her and the child. That
absolutely needs to be remedied. But I am talking here about a MARRIED
MAN who chose to have children with his wife, who raised and cared for
those children for years and years--then suddenly decides he does not
want to be a father any more and wants to use the **you chose to bring
the children into the world, so it's your responsibility to take care
of them*** argument. The fact that the woman could have chosen to
abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at that point.****

I agree with your premise however we're right back to custody and child
support problems that seem to be very obviously sexually discriminative.
A mother can choose to all but eliminate the father of teenagers while
keeping both hands firmly planted in his pockets. The reverse and
unintended consequence of that would be the ability of the father to
make the same choice AND spend his income as he sees fit, including the
true support of his children.

As the various laws are applied, women have unilateral rights in regard
to reproduction *including* the amount of responsibility of the father
for unborn or born children. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral
responsibility, which is what I think Chris is saying.

Logically, one would think that after birth, at least, both parents are
identically situated and should be equally responsible (and retain equal
rights) but we know that isn't true by any stretch of the imagination.
Giving the mothers unilateral choice while handing responsibility to men
for any given situation is the problem. It seems that Chris is simply
pointing out the magnitude of the problem by carrying the conclusion to
the opposite extreme. That is, women have rights, which if extended to
men would leave women with unilateral choices BUT also unilateral
responsibility.

Phil #3


The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility
from which she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions, would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

--
[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...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves and a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in
the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this right
to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be
remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and
years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at
that point.****

Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's sole
choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS! How
nice.


The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage equates to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the man.
Isn't that special.

--
[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
...

"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!!

"Ridiculous" is just your opinion.
The fact remains that it is an impossibility for him to make such choice.
Unless, of course, he forces her at gunpoint to give birth. And whether or
not there exists some government certificate of marriage has no bearing on
that fact either. Not to mention, any time period that has elapsed.


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.

Correction: The government people, by inference, are saying so. Their body,
THEIR choice.

YOU,
Chris, and saying that fathers are not important.

You're right. Gee, how dumb of me. Fathers are VERY important because
without them mothers would not get much needed FREE MONEY!

--
[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
...

"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.

I don't know what kind of sad, barren life you have lived, Chris, but my
husband and I decided together to have our 2 children. It may have been
my
body that carried them until they were able to live outside the womb, but
we
decided together to have them. How sad that you have not experienced such
a
thing.

First, you proclaim that you don't know what kind of life I have lived,
then, in the very next breath, you state what I have not experienced. It was
YOUR body, YOUR choice to give birth. IMPOSSIBLE for him to make such
choice. Still, your assumption is false.



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.

So sad, so very, very sad.........

What's so sad about not being responsible for a choice one is incapable of
making?

"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...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves and
a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a
child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in
the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this right
to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be
remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and
years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to
use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play at
that point.****

Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's sole
choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS! How
nice.

The two of them choosing to keep and raise those children is a choice that
both of them made. The mother cannot take a 15 year old to a safe haven and
walk away with no questions asked, as she can when the child is just a few
days old. Neither should the father be able to make that choice. It went
from *sole choice* to *their choice* when they chose to raise the child
together.



The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage equates
to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the man.
Isn't that special.

Nope--onto **them** Not just her, not just him **Them** Something you
don't seeem to believe in. You are as bad as the CS folks, Chris.

--
[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...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves
and
a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a
great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a
child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which in
the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this
right
to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and
expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be
remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children
with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and
years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to
use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the
woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play
at
that point.****

Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's
sole
choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS! How
nice.

The two of them choosing to keep and raise those children is a choice that
both of them made. The mother cannot take a 15 year old to a safe haven
and
walk away with no questions asked, as she can when the child is just a few
days old. Neither should the father be able to make that choice. It went
from *sole choice* to *their choice* when they chose to raise the child
together.

What, exactly, became THEIR choice?




The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from
which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage equates
to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the
man.
Isn't that special.

Nope--onto **them** Not just her, not just him **Them**

Nice play on semantics. The responsibility that gets shifted onto him is no
longer on her; hence it is NOT "them". Remember, she is the shifter and he
is the shiftee.

Something you
don't seeem to believe in. You are as bad as the CS folks, Chris.

Thank you for your opinion; but my claim remains true.

"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...

"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.

I've typed, erased and retyped this repeatedly trying to convey my
thoughts.... I'll just say this:
A mother allows one child to cut the slices of cake for themselves
and
a
sibling, then allows the other to choose their piece. There is a
great
probability that both will get an even-sized slice.
Chris pointed out that women are making the decisions on whether a
child
will be born then strapping the men with the responsibility, which
in
the
cake scenario would be letting one brother slice the cake and also
decide
which slice they wanted. He just expounded the extension of this
right
to
men, which exposes the problem of treating men and women differently
because of their sex.

I don't disagree with that if we are talking about unmarried
couples--I
think it is outrageous that a woman can choose to bear a child and
expect
the man to support her and the child. That absolutely needs to be
remedied.
But I am talking here about a MARRIED MAN who chose to have children
with
his wife, who raised and cared for those children for years and
years--then
suddenly decides he does not want to be a father any more and wants to
use
the **you chose to bring the children into the world, so it's your
responsibility to take care of them*** argument. The fact that the
woman
could have chosen to abort 15 years previously **is no longer in play
at
that point.****

Well of course! Because after 15 years, the responsibility for one's
sole
choice (at least for mothers) suddenly ............... DISAPPEARS! How
nice.

The two of them choosing to keep and raise those children is a choice
that
both of them made. The mother cannot take a 15 year old to a safe haven
and
walk away with no questions asked, as she can when the child is just a
few
days old. Neither should the father be able to make that choice. It
went
from *sole choice* to *their choice* when they chose to raise the child
together.

What, exactly, became THEIR choice?

Raising the child together, Chris. THEY made the choice and commitment to
do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because
the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a
parent than the mother!





The law is that women can choose to abort or not and if not, the law
also
allows her to force the father (usually) to a responsibility from
which
she is immune.
If women knew they had to be responsible for their unilateral
decisions,
would they be so laissez-faire?
'What's good for the goose...' and all that.

See above. I am not talking about *all* situations--just the one
mentioned.

Apparently, you believe that the government document of marriage
equates
to
the legal shift of responsibility for a woman's sole choice onto the
man.
Isn't that special.

Nope--onto **them** Not just her, not just him **Them**

Nice play on semantics. The responsibility that gets shifted onto him is
no
longer on her; hence it is NOT "them". Remember, she is the shifter and he
is the shiftee.

Something you
don't seeem to believe in. You are as bad as the CS folks, Chris.

Thank you for your opinion; but my claim remains true.

Not even close.