Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

snip

?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child than there are children to place.

That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would
not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women.
That is another issue, nutjob.

==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)


Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion
every time and all you have here is emotion.


I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from
single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent
divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg
up, dear.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are
incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but
feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge
of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"?

"pandora" wrote in message
newsbednUQ2BbzVzoDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
teachrmama wrote:
......................

As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There is
always
a
waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean society
is
taking on the burden?

First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to give to
couples.
==
OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional!
==
Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does.
==
Except all those adoptive families.
==
Secondly,
society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and crime.
And
there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single
parents.
==
?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child
than there are children to place.
==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)

I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

I'm sure you'd like to have your child stolen from you if you fell on hard
times. You're disgusting.

I said no such thing. I said that the women who continue to bring child
after child into this world with no way to support them except taxpayer
funds should not be permitted to continue to sponge off the taxpayers that
way. If they choose not to support themselves or their children, that would
be child neglect, whould it not? One child, one mistake, understandable.
But, after that, they should not be permitted to keep children that they
cannot afford to raise. Adopt them out to people who care enought to
provide for them. I said nothing about taking the children of people who
fall on hard times. Pay attention.

"pandora" wrote in message
news:lcSdnRydbfGayYDYnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris wrote:

snip

Precisely what is this burden that you speak of?

The burden of being pregnant and having to choose between gestation and
abortion...both of which are dangerous to her.

Awwwwww.....whimper whine


Why do you see whimpering where there is merely observation and fact?
It's
really too bad that such as you didn't die in childbirth.

How...uh....mature of you. If she doesn't want the risks, tell her to keep
her panties on. She doesn't have to get pregnant. And she does NOT become
a victim just because she does get pregnant.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

snip

?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child than there are children to place.

That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would
not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women.
That is another issue, nutjob.

==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)


Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion
every time and all you have here is emotion.


I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking
a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from
single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent
divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg
up, dear.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you
are
incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them,
but
feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even
knowledge
of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"?

You are dealing with a person speaking ghetto slang. The ideas being
advanced seem so outrageous because they are based on experience from the
projects.

Here's a hint...a person who is "third leg up" needs to find a "third leg
warmer" and hope to hell she doesn't get pregnant. Sorry if I spoiled your
dinner. :-)

teachrmama wrote:

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...


snip

?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child than there are children to place.

That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would
not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women.
That is another issue, nutjob.


==

You lose on all counts.

==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)


Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion
every time and all you have here is emotion.


I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from
single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent
divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg
up, dear.


I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy.

Neither does hyperdunce.

My comment was that you are
incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but
feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge
of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"?

Gini wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote

Hyerdahl wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:


Hyerdahl wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a
woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting
parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and
identical
parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible
for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's
sovereign
rights and authority.

.......................................

a recent Swedish study published in The Lancet, says:
"Children living with only one parent have a higher risk of death, mental
illness and injury than those in two-parent families, even when their
socioeconomic disadvantage is taken into account."

These are just two of an enormous body of research that almost
universially shows that children fare better in a two parent family than
in a single parent family...particularly when that single parent family is
headed by a woman.


No. There has never been a study that can eliminate the effects of
poverty so poverty is the crucial factor in homes without two incomes.

Sure there have. Most studies have considered the socio-economic
factors involved and what they've found is that in families with
comparable income levels, child rearing outcomes in those families with
two parents OR single parent families with a male head of household are
dramatically more favourable than in single parent families with a female
as head of household. This result has been remarkably consistent across
all scio-economic strata...



So, now you have nothing there. You never did, really, since the govt.
cannot promise a child...even one parent....let alone two.

That's true, no but God can guarantee two parents...or even *any*
parents...but the Government *CAN* promise NOT TO unnecessarily disrupt
or damage the parental arrangement and they *CAN* promise NOT TO reward
someone who does...

The govt. can only set up custody and divide the assets of a marriage
now dissolved, Ken. And that's all the govt. does.

The "government" has created and continues to foster an environment
which rewards individuals (overwhelmingly women) for disrupting and
destroying families.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wait until the next teacher gets pregnant with her 13 year old
student, (shouldn't be too long to wait...seems they're all "doing
it")...;-) But this time we'll have to money to back the kid and his
family all the way to the SC...a case *very much* like RoevWade...and
we'll see if Bill Of Rights "Equal Protection" clause is actually
meaningful:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws."

...Ken

==
Nicely argued, Ken. I vote you leader ;-)

Thankyou, thankyou...no applause please...just throw money ;-)

....Ken

pandora wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
teachrmama wrote:
......................

As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There is
always
a
waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean society is
taking on the burden?

First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to give to
couples.
==
OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional!
==
Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does.
==
Except all those adoptive families.
==
Secondly,
society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and crime. And
there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single
parents.
==
?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents waiting
for a child
than there are children to place.
==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)

So says a baby stealer. I'm not laughing.


Poor gini....has got to be a man. :-)

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

snip

?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child than there are children to place.

That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would
not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women.
That is another issue, nutjob.

==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)


Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion
every time and all you have here is emotion.


I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from
single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent
divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg
up, dear.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you are
incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them, but
feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even knowledge
of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"?

There is no double standard in how the laws are applied, 'mama'. Women
and men have the same exact rights to not divulge their sexual partners
AND the same rights to be primary parents prior to the divorce. What
is it about those things you don't understand?

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

snip

?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child than there are children to place.

That is not answering what I wrote above, idiot mini gini. There would
not be enough adoptive parents to take the children of single women.
That is another issue, nutjob.

==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)


Calling a person stupid does not make them stupid; logic beats emotion
every time and all you have here is emotion.


I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it. Taking
a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have contact
with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

Normal people can see the difference between stealing children from
single mothers and knowing that there is no law to make either parent
divulge their sexual partners. Most people just think you're third leg
up, dear.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hy. My comment was that you
are
incensed by the thought of mothers having their children kept from them,
but
feel there is nothing at all wrong with keeping children (ir even
knowledge
of their children) from their fathers.Can we all say "double standard"?

There is no double standard in how the laws are applied, 'mama'. Women
and men have the same exact rights to not divulge their sexual partners
AND the same rights to be primary parents prior to the divorce. What
is it about those things you don't understand?

What is it about unmarried sex, woman gets pregnant (perhaps multiple
times), keeps
child(ren) from father(s) and lives on taxpayer money that YOU don't
understand? Do you think that we, as taxpayers, should continue to foot the
bill for these women whose children will be raised in grinding poverty? You
expect responsibility from men--what about from women?

And what is there about working and earning money to support one's family
that makes that person be considered not a primary caregiver? What kind of
care do you think the other parent would be able to give *without* the money
earned by the working parent?

You seem to feel that women are owed by men--that men should take care of
women. Why is that, Hy?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"pandora" wrote in message
newsbednUQ2BbzVzoDYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0l0Tg.2452$Bp3.1732@trndny07...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
teachrmama wrote:
......................

As I said, let the babies be adopted by loving couples. There
is
always
a
waiting list for babies. How do you interpret that to mean
society is
taking on the burden?

First, it is unconstitutional to steal babies from parents to
give to
couples.
==
OMG! My adopted son is unconstitutional!
==
Hitler would like your idea, but no one else does.
==
Except all those adoptive families.
==
Secondly,
society takes on the burden by increased costs in taxes and
crime. And
there are not enough families to adopt all the children of single
parents.
==
?? You're out of the loop, Hy! There are FAR more adoptive parents
waiting
for a child
than there are children to place.
==
You lose on all counts.
==
ROTFLMAO! You remain embarrassingly stupid.
Thanks for the laughs :-)

I needed a good laugh today, and figured she would provide it.
Taking a
child from a mother who can't pay is stealing the child. But not
notifying
the man that he is the father and/or refusing to let him have
contact with
his child is not stealing. What a dork!

I'm sure you'd like to have your child stolen from you if you fell on
hard
times. You're disgusting.

I said no such thing. I said that the women who continue to bring
child after child into this world with no way to support them except
taxpayer funds should not be permitted to continue to sponge off the
taxpayers that way. If they choose not to support themselves or their
children, that would be child neglect, whould it not? One child, one
mistake, understandable. But, after that, they should not be permitted
to keep children that they cannot afford to raise. Adopt them out to
people who care enought to provide for them. I said nothing about
taking the children of people who fall on hard times. Pay attention.



TM, while I agree with the sentiment you are putting forth, I disagree
with the government covering for people's unintended results of bad
judgment. Unless people return to accepting their own responsibility,
including their mistakes, whatever they may be, nothing will change.
Right now, feminists are demanding society 'fix' all 'problems', even
when there is no problem and it has led to a society we have today that
has become totally dependent on the government to take care of even
mundane things.
Phil #3