A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who has the ultimate right to choose?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 15th 07, 09:40 PM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?

On Apr 15, 12:43�pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?


Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this,
does
he.


* Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.


Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. *Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected *sex with her.
*A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.


You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. *It is HIS CHILD! *He has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. *He should have that child with him
50% of the time. *And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. *FORCED LABOR if
necessary! *You keep leaving that part out. *I'm not sure why.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Teacher, that is only true in some States. In Illinois, it is not.

Not saying its right, but in Illinois, it's the law and therefore must
be followed.

  #22  
Old April 15th 07, 10:06 PM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Animal05[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?

teachrmama wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?

Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this,

does

he.

Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.

Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.



You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him
50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if
necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.




Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an
unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to
a man where none exists.
  #23  
Old April 15th 07, 10:22 PM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 15, 12:43?pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?


Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding
this,
does
he.


Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.


Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides
to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.


You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with
him
50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if
necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -


Teacher, that is only true in some States. In Illinois, it is not.

Not saying its right, but in Illinois, it's the law and therefore must
be followed.

I'm not talking about the law--I'm talking about right and wrong. Robert
keeps ranting about putting fathers into forced labor camps to make them
provide financial support. (I'm pretty darn sure forced labor camps are not
the law in Illinois.) He never even mentions the father's right to parent
his own child. He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never
mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the children's
needs. He jsut keeps ranting about irresponsible men who do not shell out
the $$$$$. His point of view is unbalanced and unfair. He probably does
not realize that and assumes that everyone knows that children should be
with their fathers 50% of the time, and that mothers should provided 50% of
the money. I'm just giving him the opportunity to correct the terrible
misimpression he has made.


  #24  
Old April 15th 07, 10:24 PM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"Animal05" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
m...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?

Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding
this,

does

he.

Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.

Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides
to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.



You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He
has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child
with him 50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50%
of the financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED
LABOR if necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.




Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an
unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to a
man where none exists.


I'm sure he is just misunderstood. Don't worry. He will correct the poor
impression we have of his postings soon. smile


  #25  
Old April 16th 07, 01:47 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0400, Animal05
wrote:

teachrmama wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
om...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?

Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding
this,

does

he.

Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.

Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides
to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his
lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.


You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He
has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with
him
50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if
necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.




Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an
unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to
a man where none exists.


What both you idiots are trying to ignore, is we are discussing a
man that doesn't want a child. A responsible intelligent man, doesn't
knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.


But, Robert, you still haven't clarified your position. IF the man wants
the child--but does not want an ongoing relationship with the woman, nor she
with him--do you feel that 50/50 shared custody with each parent providing
for the child while the child is with them is the way to go?

IF the woman does not want the child, but the father does, should the woman
bef forced to provide for the child for 18-22 years--even with forced labor
if necessary?

I really am curious as to your feelings on this subject. Not everyone
coaught up in the child support system have tried to escape their
responsibilities. Some are glad to pay, but are given NO OPPORTUNITY to be
a real parent.


  #26  
Old April 16th 07, 02:16 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Relayer wrote:
Really, bottom line is if the guy doesn't want to be a father,

the
LEAST he can do is use a condom.

A classic anti-abortion argument.

Not 100% but still better than
nothing. However, most guys dont like them. But some will like
being
a
father a LOT less.....

If he didn't use a condom, then too bad.

"If she wore a short skirt then she deserved to be raped."

Same logic.

Oh come on, Ray. A man who does not want to be a father but

does
want
to
engage in sexual intercourse could at least have the common

sense
to
protect
himself.

The classic anti-abortion argument.

It's HIS sperm--he should at least try to keep the little
fellers
corralled.

And her egg. But more importantly, whether to have a child is

still
entirely her choice.

All the more reason for the man to protect himself--seeing as how

at
this
point in time the system is going to enrich the woman at the

expense
of
both
the man and the child. Certainly there is nobody else out there
protecting
you.

Time to change the system. Not that I expect it to happen soon
because most women are more interested in protecting their

priviledges
than they are in equality.


I agree. But, until then, you'd best be protecting yourself, right?

Double-edged sword. Are there immediate benefits to protecting
yourself?
Yes. However, if the vast majority of men "protect" themselves, then
the
chances of the system changing approaches zero. Why? Because this

problem
will be virtually non-existent; no complaints, crusades, etc..
Remember,
the
squeaky wheel gets the grease; or at least has a chance to get the

grease.
No squeak, no grease.

Surely, surely you are not suggesting that men go out and impregnate
every
possible female so the "squeak" will be louder, Chris! I am apalled at

your
suggestion!!


I made no such suggestion. I only stated a fact.



So now we have a NEW problem; that of men shouldering the

irresponsible
woman's responsibility. But wait, they're already doing that.

Besides,
how
will the human race continue with men protecting themselves? Last I
checked,
parthenogenesis in humans does not exist.

What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?


Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this,
does
he.



The problem men are faced with is not unlike the problem that a woman
utilizing an empty laundromat late at night faces. When she gets

raped
while
doing her children's laundry, could you imagine the public outcry if

it
was
suggested that she somehow deserved it because she did not "protect"
herself? But yet, apply the SAME example to a man (regarding
unprotected
sex), and it's commonly accepted that he deserved it. Go figure.

Sticking clothes in a wahing machine to get them clean is not exactly

the
same as sticking you ______ in a ____ to give yourself pleasure, Chris.


No it's not. Apparently, my analogy has escaped you..


There is a railroad track running just outside little town. We get 2

trains
through per day--one in the middle of the night, and one at about 2 in the
afternoon. Because of the low traffic on the road, there are not

protective
arms coming down to keep folks from crossing at the wrong time, although
there are the flashing lights and bells. It is perfectly legal to walk
along the country road and across therailroad tracks. But I would be a

big
fool were I to try to display my right to walk there just as a train was
coming through. The train would win--every time. My "rights" will NOT
protect me from the train.


No they won't; but the train aint' doin' anything wrong either.





I guess you could say that no benefit is without its risks. But the

man
should NOT be forced to share a risk without the accompanying

benefit!

Hey, you know perfectly well how I feel about 50/50 shared custody,

each
parent pays their own way. Btu what does stupidly feeding yourself to

a
merciless system have to do with overcoming the evils of that system?
Protect yourself, and fight for justice. You don't have to be a victim
to
fight.


No, but without a victim there is nothing to fight. Again, if EVERY man
"protects" himself, what will happen to the human race? I always thought
that the process of procreation was designed perfectly.


Do yoyu intend to procreate every time you have sex, Chris? If so, you

have
nothing to complain about because you do, indeed, intend to be a father.

If
you do not wish to be a father every time you have sex, have the common
sense to not walk across the tracks when the train is coming.


Faulty analogy. (see above)


However, there are
some who would disagree. Parthenogenesis is more to their liking.
Lesbians,
feminazis, etc. come to mind. Problem is their procedure won't work.
Consensual sex is a basic human right; and last I checked, human rights
are
undeserving of punishment. But just like you, I too agree in 505/50
equality
across the board. So, if you're gonna punish the man for having sex,

then
so
too shall the woman be punished.


Rather that "punish"--how about if we hold both parties equally

responsible
to care for the child and to financially support the child.


That's a far cry better than the sick system that these sick government
people are enforcing!

Raising a
child is NOT a punishment. Paying for a child that you do not get the
pleasure of raising could be considered punishment.


Worse than that. Being forced to hand free cash to a woman says absolutely
NOTHING about paying for any child. But you already knew that.





To my knowledge, being a parent isn't a crime; at least it's not if

you
are
a woman. But if you are a man, you get fined with TWO DECADES of

payments
or
prison, even if you were FORCED into parenthood.

And if you know that will be the result, why would you be foolish

enought
NOT to protect yourself?


I guess for the same reason the laundromat woman was foolish enough to

not
protect herself.
You see, no one can predict (know) the future; and as far as I know, it

is
NOT a crime to be foolish.


Ah, but, Chris, at this point in time it IS illegal to father a child and
not pay the ordered support. THAT is the part that you consider wrong,
isn't it? The woman in the laundromat unprotected late at night is

foolish
but not criminal. The man who fathers an unwanted child and refuses to

pay
CS is both foolish and criminal, according to today's laws. The wise man
will protect himself.


Whether or not it is illegal is irrelevant. By "foolish", as you said, I was
making reference to the man having unprotected sex.





  #27  
Old April 16th 07, 02:22 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"Robert" wrote
..........................
A responsible intelligent man, doesn't
knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

==
So...how long have you been with this woman and how much child support do
you think he
should be paying?


  #28  
Old April 16th 07, 02:45 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"Gini" wrote in message news:LdAUh.508$Yh.432@trndny03...

"Robert" wrote
.........................
A responsible intelligent man, doesn't
knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

==
So...how long have you been with this woman and how much child support do
you think he
should be paying?


chuckle Now, Gini, you sound quite cynical here. smile


  #29  
Old April 16th 07, 03:12 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Robert[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:06:29 -0400, Animal05
wrote:

teachrmama wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
m...

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?

Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding this,

does

he.

Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.

Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she decides to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.



You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with him
50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if
necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.




Isn't it interesting how "robert" wishes to ascribe as a "right" an
unatural process to a woman, and assign an "absolute responsibility" to
a man where none exists.


What both you idiots are trying to ignore, is we are discussing a
man that doesn't want a child. A responsible intelligent man, doesn't
knock up a woman that he doesn't want to raise a family with. But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #30  
Old April 16th 07, 03:42 AM posted to talk.abortion,alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Who has the ultimate right to choose?


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 15, 12:43?pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:32:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:04:32 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


What do you care how irresponsible the woman is if you are taking
responsibility for YOUR sexual behavior?


Since the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she will

bear
children, the man doesn't have much of a responsibility regarding
this,
does
he.


Yep, he can make damn sure it's not his children.


Indeed he can, but not a prerequisite. Whether the children she

decides
to
bring into the world are fathered by him or not does not change his

lack
of
responsibility. It is impossible for him to be responsible for her

SOLE
choice to bear children.


Whether or not she has a child is none of his business, as long as
it's not his child. If he ****'s up, and she has his child he has a
obligation to support that child. Any ******* that refuses to support
his child, needs to be horse whipped, and castrated. Don't want a
woman to have your child, don't have unprotected sex with her.
A man has the absolute responsibility to support his offspring.


You keep forgetting a VERY IMPORTANT part, Robert. It is HIS CHILD! He

has
the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to parent that child. He should have that child with
him
50% of the time. And the mother should be forced to provide 50% of the
financial support of the child, just as the father is. FORCED LABOR if
necessary! You keep leaving that part out. I'm not sure why.- Hide

quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -


Teacher, that is only true in some States. In Illinois, it is not.

Not saying its right, but in Illinois, it's the law and therefore must
be followed.

I'm not talking about the law--I'm talking about right and wrong. Robert
keeps ranting about putting fathers into forced labor camps to make them
provide financial support. (I'm pretty darn sure forced labor camps are

not
the law in Illinois.) He never even mentions the father's right to parent
his own child. He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never
mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the children's
needs. He jsut keeps ranting about irresponsible men who do not shell out
the $$$$$. His point of view is unbalanced and unfair. He probably does
not realize that and assumes that everyone knows that children should be
with their fathers 50% of the time, and that mothers should provided 50%

of
the money. I'm just giving him the opportunity to correct the terrible
misimpression he has made.


Don't hold your breath.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who has the ultimate right to choose? Chris Child Support 295 April 25th 07 04:19 PM
Who has the ultimate right to choose? Chris Child Support 0 April 4th 07 06:37 PM
World Ultimate Fighting [email protected] General 0 February 28th 07 08:34 AM
Ultimate Mom's Day out! [email protected] General 0 September 4th 06 04:16 PM
Execution--the ultimate child abuse! Fern5827 Spanking 6 February 8th 04 08:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.