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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [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... "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. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? 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! Nor did I claim so. 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. What, specifically, is false about my claim? And please don't say "all of it" or "all of them", as I have made many claims. Be specific. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "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.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote
"Chris" wrote ..................... 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [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... "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. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "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.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. Nice topic change. We are discussing the choice to give birth; remember? Now we weren't. This is what I said "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.**** That is not a discussion about birth. It is a discussion about men being able to walk away from children at any time he chooses--even a decade or more later-- because he did not give birth to them. You commented on the mother's freedom to choose abortion (which includes the choice to give birth) being long past thus no longer in play. I responded in agreement stating that the responsibility for her choice vanishes. Not sure how or why, but somehow POOF, it's gone. And just what choice do you think I was referring to? Who knows, Chris. You like to twist things around to avoid the point. And the point is: In no way is it right to say that, because a woman CAN choose to abort a child, a man will never have any responsibility toward that child because he CANNOT choose to abort. How does a woman having the choice to abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child, 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. Correction: That is what the GOVERNMENT people say by inference. And YOU choose to take it and run with it and say that no man should ever have any responsibility toward a child. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... THEY made the choice and commitment to do that. THEY made the choice and commitment to be parents. Just because the child did not grow in the father's womb does not make him any less of a parent than the mother! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message
... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. ==== I'm sensing issues--Did your father abandon you? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Gini" wrote in message news:jl8Tj.2198$5_1.2073@trndny05... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:sNRSj.1337$cD3.1161@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Chris" wrote .................... 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! Nor did I claim so. But you have said that, because the man did not give birth, he should be entitled to walk away scot free any time he chooses to. ==== He also said this: "I know a number of folks who had no father. Many of them say they were just fine with such an arrangement. Some have actually expressed joy that he was not in the picture, saying they are better off." Not a big fan of fathers, is he? He certainly does not seem to be. I do not find today's system to be at all fair, but his ideas about men being able to just walk away whenever they want to beause they did not make the decision to bring the child to birth is just plain scary. Then I guess you will just have to take it up with the government people, because that is what's fair when it comes to THEIR rules. ==== I'm sensing issues--Did your father abandon you? It would be interesting to know why he is so h^ll bent on having the right to walk away from any child at any time with no ongoing responsibility to that child. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |