TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

snip

And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give
birth.
===========================
No, Chris.

Yes it is.

That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The
choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after*
the
safe haven option.

Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it?

Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made
**following** the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's
choice to raise his children counts for nothing because he did not,
personally, give birth?


Er... the father's options are actually limited on whether to engage in
coitus or not and sometimes not even that given that a few men have been
court ordered to be (absent) "father" and the probably millions of men who
have been duped into paying for children conceived by cuckolding. Once
conception occurs, the father has no choices except to abide by the result
of the mother's choice, IF she even tells him about it.
He may want to raise his children but the outcome is still not his to
decide. At best, the mother will allow it without interference, at worst,
name him as a pedophile to use the courts to keep him from the children
while extracting too much money in C$.
It is not atypical for a man and woman to marry and have children, both
acting as parents only to have the wife file for divorce and try to limit
the time between children and father while demanding he step up and be the
kind of father she demands he be. His choices to raise his children count
for nothing UNLESS the mother approves. She is the ONLY one with real
choice beyond the sex act.

The conversation, at this point, has been about whether the married father
of, say, a 9 year old and 13 year old has the right to walk out on the
children and family with no responsibilities toward them ever again because
he "did not choose to give birth." It is my position that, once he and the
mother chose to raise those children together, the choice to give birth has
been superceded by the choice to raise the children together. I do not
think that, because a man does not have the ability to birth children, he
never has any responsibility toward those children, and provides for them
only as long as he chooses to do so. I find that position to be abhorrent!

I am not, however a proponent of today's system where women have all the
rights. The woman should NOT have the ability to choose whether or not a
man gets to be a father to his own children. That is as sick as the idea
that a man can walk away at any time because he did not give birth.

===================================



How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child,
Chris?

No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of
making;
a
concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike.

Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that
child
has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman.

Because?

A man cannot say,
15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to
these
childre, so I have no responsibility toward them."

But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF
with
his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!".
========================
And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it
so
men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their
children
will **not** fix that problem.
========================

Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off.

Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal
children are ripping off the men?

It doesn't matter if he is, the fact is that millions do and by putting
sole responsibility on the one with sole choice puts the horse in the
correct barn.

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.

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.


The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in reproductive
matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also
should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If men
are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that
responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising
together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to
abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them,
Phil?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

snip

And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to
give
birth.
===========================
No, Chris.

Yes it is.

That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The
choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth,
*after* the
safe haven option.

Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it?

Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made
**following** the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a
father's choice to raise his children counts for nothing because he
did not, personally, give birth?


Er... the father's options are actually limited on whether to engage
in coitus or not and sometimes not even that given that a few men
have been court ordered to be (absent) "father" and the probably
millions of men who have been duped into paying for children
conceived by cuckolding. Once conception occurs, the father has no
choices except to abide by the result of the mother's choice, IF she
even tells him about it.
He may want to raise his children but the outcome is still not his to
decide. At best, the mother will allow it without interference, at
worst, name him as a pedophile to use the courts to keep him from the
children while extracting too much money in C$.
It is not atypical for a man and woman to marry and have children,
both acting as parents only to have the wife file for divorce and try
to limit the time between children and father while demanding he step
up and be the kind of father she demands he be. His choices to raise
his children count for nothing UNLESS the mother approves. She is the
ONLY one with real choice beyond the sex act.

The conversation, at this point, has been about whether the married
father of, say, a 9 year old and 13 year old has the right to walk out
on the children and family with no responsibilities toward them ever
again because he "did not choose to give birth." It is my position
that, once he and the mother chose to raise those children together,
the choice to give birth has been superceded by the choice to raise
the children together. I do not think that, because a man does not
have the ability to birth children, he never has any responsibility
toward those children, and provides for them only as long as he
chooses to do so. I find that position to be abhorrent!


The current situation is no less abhorrent wherein the mother has 100%
of the choices including the ones that will be handed to the father with
or without his concent.


I am not, however a proponent of today's system where women have all
the rights. The woman should NOT have the ability to choose whether
or not a man gets to be a father to his own children. That is as sick
as the idea that a man can walk away at any time because he did not
give birth.

Exactly.



===================================



How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child,
Chris?

No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable
of
making;
a
concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my
bike.

Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise
that
child
has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman.

Because?

A man cannot say,
15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give
birth to
these
childre, so I have no responsibility toward them."

But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so
"OFF
with
his relationship with my children. And I will take his money
too!".
========================
And that is the problem with the system in place today. But
making it so
men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their
children
will **not** fix that problem.
========================

Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off.

Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their
communal children are ripping off the men?

It doesn't matter if he is, the fact is that millions do and by
putting sole responsibility on the one with sole choice puts the
horse in the correct barn.

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.

What is needed is total fairness and equality as well as equal
responsibility for parents from one end of the subject to the other and
regardless their marital status.
By reversing the situation in discussion, perhaps others can see how
screwed up the current situation is.


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.


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.
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.
Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever
get any.




The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to
match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should
be given choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.
Phil #3

--
[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
...
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

You stated: " The fact that the woman
could have chosen to abort..." which implies the choice to give
birth.

I responded: "... the responsibility for one's sole
choice (at least for mothers)..." concerning the choice that is
"no
longer
in play".

Since the choice of abortion is irrelevant to this forum, the only
choice
left is the woman's choice to give birth. No twisting on MY part.

Nonstop twisting on your part, Chris. The point has always been
that,
depspite the woman's right to abort or drop infant off at safe
haven,
once
the man chooses to raise his children with mom, he has no further
right
to
opt out. Just like mom has no further right to opt out.

Did you even bother to read the quotes? Nowhere does it mention him
choosing
to raise a child. CLEARLY, I spelled out to you, in quotes, the
dialogue.
And still you deny the issue. Explain, please, just exactly how I
twisted
ANYTHING. Feel free to use quotes just as I have done.



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.

But wait a minute, I thought the topic was about men walking away
from
children, not her choice regarding abortion? Make up your mind.

chuckle You do like to tapdance, Chris.

"That is not a discussion about birth". Ring a bell? The only
tapdancing
being done is by YOU.

I repeat: once the man chooses
to raise his children with mom, he has no further right to opt out.
Just
like mom has no further right to opt out.

And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to give
birth.
===========================
No, Chris.

Yes it is.

That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The
choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after*
the
safe haven option.

Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it?

Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made
**following**
the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's choice to raise
his children counts for nothing because he did not, personally, give
birth?

As far as the mother's choice, absolutely! But since her sole choice is no
longer in play, then let's remove from her any rights associated with such
(nonexistent) choice.


===================================



How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child,
Chris?

No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of
making;
a
concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike.

Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise that
child
has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman.

Because?

A man cannot say,
15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth to
these
childre, so I have no responsibility toward them."

But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so "OFF
with
his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!".
========================
And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making it
so
men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their
children
will **not** fix that problem.
========================

Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off.

Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal
children are ripping off the men?

No. But all women who are collecting "child support" (by force) are.







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.

Not even close. If a man chooses to accept such responsibility,
more
power
to him.

Ah, but you also say that he can choose to walk away at any time.
THAT
is
where I deiagree with you, Chris.

Straw man. That is not what I said, EVER! But I like your twist.
I can faithfully make your house payments for sixteen years. But
guess
what,
I have no obligation to pay on the seventeenth year. Unless, of
course,
I
have made some sort of a contract. Performing an act today does not,
in
and
of itself, obligate one to perform it again tomorrow. But apparently
you
disagree.
===================================
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.

Only in the sense that he provided one single cell required for the woman to
create her child. About all the "child support" people care about; gimme
that DNA.

Of course, for
individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility, that doesn't
count, does it?

Depends on the jurisdiction. Where only DNA is considered, it doesn't count
for those mothers. Thus, you'd be correct. But where fatherhood is assigned
(due to such raising), you would be wrong.

--
[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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

snip

And I repeat, the only choice left is the woman's SOLE choice to
give
birth.
===========================
No, Chris.

Yes it is.

That choice was made years before. It is a done deal. The
choice to raise the children with mom came *after* the birth, *after*
the
safe haven option.

Uhuh, but it was still made. Or do we just forget about it?

Absolutely!! It is no longer in play. A choice has been made
**following** the choice to give birth. Are you saying that a father's
choice to raise his children counts for nothing because he did not,
personally, give birth?


Er... the father's options are actually limited on whether to engage in
coitus or not and sometimes not even that given that a few men have been
court ordered to be (absent) "father" and the probably millions of men
who
have been duped into paying for children conceived by cuckolding. Once
conception occurs, the father has no choices except to abide by the
result
of the mother's choice, IF she even tells him about it.
He may want to raise his children but the outcome is still not his to
decide. At best, the mother will allow it without interference, at
worst,
name him as a pedophile to use the courts to keep him from the children
while extracting too much money in C$.
It is not atypical for a man and woman to marry and have children, both
acting as parents only to have the wife file for divorce and try to
limit
the time between children and father while demanding he step up and be
the
kind of father she demands he be. His choices to raise his children
count
for nothing UNLESS the mother approves. She is the ONLY one with real
choice beyond the sex act.

The conversation, at this point, has been about whether the married father
of, say, a 9 year old and 13 year old has the right to walk out on the
children and family with no responsibilities toward them ever again
because
he "did not choose to give birth." It is my position that, once he and
the
mother chose to raise those children together, the choice to give birth
has
been superceded by the choice to raise the children together. I do not
think that, because a man does not have the ability to birth children, he
never has any responsibility toward those children, and provides for them
only as long as he chooses to do so. I find that position to be
abhorrent!

I am not, however a proponent of today's system where women have all the
rights. The woman should NOT have the ability to choose whether or not a
man gets to be a father to his own children. That is as sick as the idea
that a man can walk away at any time because he did not give birth.

===================================



How does a woman having the choice to
abort relieve a man of any responibility toward that child,
Chris?

No one is responsible for a choice which they are incapable of
making;
a
concept I grasped before the training wheels were off my bike.

Exactly what I disagree with, Chris. Once the choice to raise
that
child
has been made, the man is as responsible for the woman.

Because?

A man cannot say,
15 years down the road "I am done with this--I did not give birth
to
these
childre, so I have no responsibility toward them."

But no problem with her saying I am done with him being a dad so
"OFF
with
his relationship with my children. And I will take his money too!".
========================
And that is the problem with the system in place today. But making
it
so
men can walk away with no responsibility whatsoever thoward their
children
will **not** fix that problem.
========================

Sure it will. She would no longer be able to rip him off.

Are you saying that all women whose husbands are raising their communal
children are ripping off the men?

It doesn't matter if he is, the fact is that millions do and by putting
sole responsibility on the one with sole choice puts the horse in the
correct barn.

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.


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.



The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive
matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral choice, they also
should also accept unilateral responsibility to match that choice. If
men
are to be at all responsible, they should be given choice equal to that
responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been raising
together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal right to
abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility toward them,
Phil?

You can't abandon that to which you have no rights.

"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.



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. My husband and I chose to
have our children. **Both** of us made the choice. 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?

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.

Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a lot
of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward fathers.
I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.





The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to match
that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be given
choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the legal
right to abandon his children at any time with no legal responsibility
toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses to
have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other parent
suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a parent
decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent should pay
for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people responsible for
their own choices!

.
"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?
==================================


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?
================================

--
[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?

================================

"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. 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.
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.



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.

Yet the principle is the same.

My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded
or even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and
yours alone.

Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the
responsiblilty you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children
result in the custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a
monthly paycheck. You may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even
sincerely believe you are equal parents but legally, you are not and
never will be.


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU.

So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and
have loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.


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.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to
my sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a
stranger that had the responsibility to pay his mother. I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other
children, vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and
custody "agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving
me a set and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she
wished. It was all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?


Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time
limit as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he
will ever get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to
a lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes
toward fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.





The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to
match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should
be given choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default.
Each parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent
chooses to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay
the other parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the
child. If a parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the
time, that parent should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about
holding people responsible for their own choices!

Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the
children from the area of the other without their express permission, I
agree.
Phil #3

"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.
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?

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?





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.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


My husband and I chose to have our children. **Both** of us made the
choice.

No, you "both" didn't. He may have been in favor of it, begged, pleaded or
even paid you to have a child but legally the choice is yours and yours
alone.

Not at all true, Phil.


Why would his choice to have and raise these children be seen as any
different from my choice to do so.

Because the way the courts are, he has no choices, only the responsiblilty
you choose for him. Virtually all divorces with children result in the
custody the mother chooses along with a promise of a monthly paycheck. You
may pretend to give him equal responsibility, even sincerely believe you
are equal parents but legally, you are not and never will be.

People are what they choose to be, Phil. You can say all you want that I am
"pretending" to give him rights to OUR children, but you are WRONG. You are
far too jaded, and need to take a step back and realize that there are still
decent, caring people in this world.


Yes, I could have prevented the children from being born--but I didn't.

But the choice was yours and yours alone. It doesn't matter WHICH choice
you made, the fact remains that the only one with actual choice was YOU.

NO, Phil, the choice was OURS, and we made it together.


So why do you see the children that *both of us chose to have, and have
loved and nurtured, to be only **my** responsibility?

With authority should come an equal responsibility. Unilateral choice
deserves unilateral responsibilty.

Now you are being unfair, and telling men that they can lie to women, marry
them with no intention of ever being there for any children that come along,
get them pregnant and walk away--all the nasty things you object to women
doing you WANT men to be able to do. Is that truly how you want things to
be?



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.

It doesn't seem much different to me. I was supposed to be a father to my
sons however when my last one was 2, I was suddenly nothing but a stranger
that had the responsibility to pay his mother.

And that was very, very wrong. THAT is what needs to be changed in the
system. Neither gender should get to behave that way!! We need balance and
fairness.

I could not
legally do anything other than "visit" him 4 days a month. I had no
authority over his environment, religion, association with other children,
vacations, dress, medical exams, etc. because the divorce and custody
"agreement" gave her "complete custody and control" while giving me a set
and unwavering amount of money to pay her to do with as she wished. It was
all very typical.
Where was MY decision to be a father?

That was wrong. That is what needs to be faought against and changed.



Perhaps it would be best to limit a man's choices to the same time limit
as the mother but currently he has none and it is unlikely he will ever
get any.

I choose to be more optimistic on the prospect. I know that I talk to a
lot of parents in my work, and I am seeing a change in attitudes toward
fathers. I am hoping it is a good omen of things to come.

I hope you're right.

Me, too, Phil. This year 90% of my students are from never-divorced,
2-parent homes. The highest percentage I've had in years.


The problem is that responsibility should equal choice but in
reproductive matters, it doesn't. If women are to have unilateral
choice, they also should also accept unilateral responsibility to
match that choice. If men are to be at all responsible, they should be
given choice equal to that responsibility.

But we are talking about older children that the parents have been
raising together. Do you really feel that a father should have the
legal right to abandon his children at any time with no legal
responsibility toward them, Phil?

I think his responsibilty should be equal to his legal options.

There I agree with you. 50/50 joint custody should be the default. Each
parent should pay for their own 50% of the time. If one parent chooses
to have the child less than 50% of the time, he/she should pay the other
parent suppot to cover the extra time that parent has the child. If a
parent decides to move and have the child 100% of the time, that parent
should pay for 100% of the expenses. It's all about holding people
responsible for their own choices!

Other than I don't think any parent should be allowed to take the children
from the area of the other without their express permission, I agree.

The only way to get things to change is to keep fighting for change.

"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! 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.