![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free will to be a parent. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights, you accept the responsibilities. I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have no responsibilities--that it should all be his choice. "Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes to a woman's choice to bear a child. I vehemently disagree with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at any time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth. That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making. IMO you are mixing up parental responsibilities with parental obligations. They are not the same thing so lumping them together is totally illogical. And it is even more illogical to claim either of those concepts are tied to childbirth decisions. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]() -- [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 ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free will to be a parent. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights, you accept the responsibilities. I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have no responsibilities--that it should all be his choice. "Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes to a woman's choice to bear a child. Liar, Chris. You ******choose****** to think of all women the same--as users, and yourself as a poor widdle victim. That is a CHOICE you make. Precisely WHAT did I say that leads you to believe so? And, in order to continue to validate you choice to think that way, you ****choose**** to speak ill of all women, as if all women are the authors of your bitterness. Grow up, Chris. Ok, I grew up. Now explain this "bitterness" to which you refer. I vehemently disagree with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at any time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth. That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making. Liar. You know you are lying, but you are doing so anyway, in order to validate your own victimhood. When did you change your mind? I have said many, many times that today's system is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you will only accept that if the person you are talking to agrees 100% with your own pathetic stand on men NEVER having any responsibility toward children unless they magnanimously choose to provide for children that they are in no way obligated to. Why do you think it is pathetic to not be responsible for someone ELSE'S choice? Your solution is as evil as the system you hate so passionately. In YOUR opinion. Perhaps you should post on alt.opinion. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
![]() -- [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 ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message snip All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much pain today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in reverse. If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL responsibility is removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed. ============================ What on earth are you talking about? The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice. ================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either. =========================== What rights are you referring to? Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire rights, no? ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find that deplorable. One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say. You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate so passionately. You are no better than the people you despise. Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only. So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad, Phil. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris. Apparently, I failed to communicate my message. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for. Add to that, even if he wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income. Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those children themselves? That depends on how the contract is written. Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should bear the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what you write. And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is starting to make me second guess. =================== And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you will NEVER have to accept responsibility. ======================== The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable. Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it? YES, it is! For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris. It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements that runs the "child support" industry. ======================= That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things, MEN will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay. EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your thought process has led you. =================== |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in family court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear absolutely no responsibility for any children you might help produce. "Help produce"? Well guess what, the grandmother "helped produce" the child too. Without HER biological contribution, there would be no child. So guess she should also bear responsibility. Your grandmother inserted her penis into the vagina of a fertile young woman, providing the sperm that connected to an egg and began a child? You have one amazing grandmother, Chris! Indeed, I would GLADLY replace the "family" court whackjobs with "whackjobs" who can make the connection between responsibilities and rights. But then there would no longer be any such "family" court. That's right--replace the whackjobs that are screwing you with whackjobs who will screw someone else. Nice, Chris, really nice....... |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 ... . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message snip All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so much pain today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in reverse. If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL responsibility is removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed. ============================ What on earth are you talking about? The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice. ================================== That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either. =========================== What rights are you referring to? Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also acquire rights, no? ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find that deplorable. One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say. You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate so passionately. You are no better than the people you despise. Describe such evil system, and then explain WHY it's evil. Look at the system you hate so much, replace those who cater to women with those who cater to men and--voila--there is the system you espouse. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... ================================ I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other parent does not have, Chris! Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any responsibility that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be able to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me. What a bunch of crap! What's crap is FORCING a man into responsibility for a choice that was impossible for him to make! I chose to become the father of my children. My choice was by free will and not some judicial authority making me become a father by fiat. If you believe in free will any parent can define their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their free will to be a parent. Fine, then YOU stand up against their guns. Your way doesn't work. Period. But my way allows me to parent as I define the role of parenting. I guess that is why I am not bitter about being a parent. But you already know that. If a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon into a man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish to be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to care for it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into the world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does not mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child simply because he does not have a uterus. Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to him! I say this right is more than voluntary. I was referring to responsibility, not rights. So let's cut to the chase. Is the obligation to support your children a right or a responsibility in your eyes? I say it is both and marital status or circumstances have nothing to do with the basic parental obligation. Fathers have every right to reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what any court says. How do you determine which laws one has the right to violate? A person can choose to violate any law. I choose top violate no laws. The children get it in the long run. And having parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the rights, you accept the responsibilities. Which is PRECISELY the problem! The so-called "family" court enforces reponsibility while at the same time DENYING the accompanying rights. Additionally, they heap such responsibility upon those who are incapable of making the choice that merits the responsibility in the first place. Get it? Continuing to equate every family law issues to a court's decision is insane. Half of all marriages remain intact and the family courts never have a say in the parental rights and responsibilities of those children or what those parents do. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
![]() -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only. So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad, Phil. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris. Apparently, I failed to communicate my message. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for. Add to that, even if he wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income. Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those children themselves? That depends on how the contract is written. Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should bear the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what you write. And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is starting to make me second guess. =================== And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you will NEVER have to accept responsibility. Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice. ======================== The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable. Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it? YES, it is! For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris. It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements that runs the "child support" industry. ======================= That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things, MEN will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay. EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your thought process has led you. I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is anything BUT like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist without the other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay anyone anything. Get it right. =================== |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]() -- [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 ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Of course not, because you subscribe to the idea of a man being held LEGALLY responsible for the woman's SOLE LEGAL choice. That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a father as a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's children until he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand. For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual". And guess what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else, according to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows. chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't count, does it? THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands. And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever. Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility to continue. A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil. Irrelevant. My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. Impossible. Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any different from my choice to do so. Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't. So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility? SOLE choice = SOLE responsiblity. Quite simple. This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced to continue to support them because that is what the children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary. But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing. Never mind the fact that he "chose" to have them, and he chose to raise them together with the mother. It is EXACTLY the same thing! No it's not. Your reading comprehension needs some fine tuning Enlighten me. What makes them different in principle? You don't want to be enlightened, Chris. You want to change the current darkness that you hate for darkness more to your liking. I don't tell you what YOU want, so please don't tell me what I want. Again, what makes them different? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip for length If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more options and less responsibility for women. And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT going to fix that. Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the options. If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should come an equal % of responsibility. The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility and options. I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he** did not give birth to them. Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only. So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad, Phil. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris. Apparently, I failed to communicate my message. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for. Add to that, even if he wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income. Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier children, even though they did not bear those children themselves? That depends on how the contract is written. Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should bear the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what you write. And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is starting to make me second guess. =================== And you want it no other way. You WANT women to have full choice so you will NEVER have to accept responsibility. Correction: I don't "want" it ANY way. Women already have full choice. ======================== The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at all, is completely unpalatable. Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it? YES, it is! For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris. It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements that runs the "child support" industry. ======================= That's right, Chris!!! That is what I have been saying all along. Your mentality is ***exactly*** like theirs, but in your way of doing things, MEN will be the ones with no responsibility, and only WOMEN will have to pay. EXACTLY the same thinking, Chris!! You have finally seen where your thought process has led you. I was making reference to YOU. That said, my thought process is anything BUT like theirs. You see, for some strange reason, I happen to believe that responsibilities AND rights are a package deal. One cannot exist without the other. Contrarily, you and the other "child support" folks believe the opposite. Additionally, NOWHERE did I ever claim that women should pay anyone anything. Get it right. So you are thinking that when good old dad walks out because he did not choose to et pregnant and give birth himself--and takes his paycheck with him which, until that time, had helped support the household--mom is **not** going to have to pay anything? Hmmm....interesting...... But then you have consistently maintained that no man anywhere should ever, ever, ever have any responsibility toward a child if he doesn't want to because he does not have a uterus. YOU are malionh biology the determinant of responsibility, because you **know** that you will never have the parts to bring a child to birth. But you do not seem to understand the first thing about being a father. You only think about you and what you should be able to get out of it for fun and for free. So mature on your part, Chrissy....... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 07:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |