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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of the unwanted child? Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility - father should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child is "unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child. That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do, even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child. That's just reality. So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what you want? I don't. If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion, the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a dumpster. Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no meaningful punishments for these types of crimes. It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers are abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them "parents" just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse. I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. What say you? I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. Mothers who are hiding pregnancies are sanctioned under these laws to continue the hide the truth after childbirth. The concept behind the drop off law is to save the baby, but the reality is the mother is saving her own butt to preserve her secret. Her choice is murder or lie. And these laws reinforce the stigma of unwanted pregnancies for young girls suggesting hiding the pregnancy and child birth will make it go away. |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Gini" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote "Gini" wrote "Fred" wrote .................................... Then we have nothing further to discuss. == Don't forget your ball, Fred. She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry unhampered. == Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? Yep. I suggested that Frederika was Hyerdahl, aka Parg. BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Too busy running her sock puppet ? Did I spell that correctly? Yes. Andre |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
I agree with most if not all of this - the forces of divorce, abortion,
death, cheating and hate of the father rule America and many western countries. Dusty wrote: The balance of power between male and female, father and mother, has been systematically destroyed in favor of female dominance at law. The following is a (short) list of female advantages over male. 1.. A married woman may legally abort her child without her husband's permission. This underscores the materialistic view that the male is merely a sperm donor and that the child is not a person. 2.. Although a wife may abort without permission from her husband, he cannot compel an abortion, even if the child is not his. 3.. A husband is legally and financially responsible for any child born to the marriage even though it is not his. 4.. Except for rich men and in cases of female default (prison, abandonment, hospitalization, death, et.al.) women universally receive custody of children and all that comes with it, the marital home and child support. 5.. Denial of court ordered visitation is common place and not punished (yet failure to pay all your child support, for any reason, will cause the state to bring a myriad of punishments down on you). 6.. Alienation, turning the kids against their father, is commonplace and tolerated by the courts. 7.. Any woman can tell any amount of lies in family court and not fear prosecution for perjury. 8.. Fathers routinely have their children taken from them by judges. In most, if not all, states men are not allowed to have jury trials. Juries would never do to families what judges do. State policy is executed via the judiciary. 9.. Women frequently scam the welfare system. When they are caught they are not prosecuted or even made to pay back the money. 10.. Women are the primary clients of the welfare state, not men. 11.. When an unmarried woman misrepresents her fecundity to a man, he is still financially liable for her unilateral decision to become pregnant. 12.. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant she may abort over the objection of the man. If she decides to keep the child he cannot compel an abortion and will be held liable for child support. 13.. Paternal grandparents have no rights of visitation with their son's children. For that matter neither do the maternal grandparents have rights of visitation - none that are enforced anyway. 14.. Any woman may call the police and allege physical abuse. Even without any physical evidence the male will be arrested, booked and placed into the system for prosecution. He must prove his innocence. He will be evicted from his home without due process of law and may have a personal protection order (restraining order) filed against him. 15.. Any woman may allege sex abuse of one of her children and 800 years of constitutional protections are thrown out the window. Without due process of law the man will be evicted from his home, arrested, booked, released on bail and prosecuted. He will have to pay child support. The allegation of sex abuse may be used in family court to obtain permanent custody. He will have to pay tens of thousand of dollars for an attorney and all this while he is trying to fund a new residence. The custodial mother can smear his name in public with impunity and even try to destroy his employment and all without fear of correction from the court. The woman does not have to retain an attorney to prosecute the sex abuse case; that the state does this for her. If it is later discovered that she lied, the system will not prosecute her. The man will get his day in court after a year or two. But by then he has had his children taken from him and his property transferred to his accuser. 16.. After divorce there are often many conflicts that have to be resolved by the court. The custodial mother does not have to hire an attorney, the court ancillary will represent her interest against the non-custodial father. The father must hire an attorney. He may represent himself but then he has a fool for an attorney. 17.. The system is quick to increase child support and even base it on overtime and/or second jobs. However, if a man loses overtime or his second job (or his primary job) he quickly falls into "arrears." The courts will not make adjustments even if loss of income is not his fault - and in some cases, they may even increase the amount and call it "incentive" to find another, high paying job (which, to them is the only thing an NCP should ever seek, even if it's not in your chosen field or at your education level) so they can go after more "support" money. 18.. Draconian measures for collection of child support have been federally mandated. These include seizure of assets, seizure of professional licenses and up to four years in prison (or more in some cases). Arrearages compound at exorbitant interest rates (some states charges up to 18% or more in interest alone!). 19.. Child support accrues for men in prison with above market interest rates. Such men become "debt slaves" to the state. (See Title 42/Chapter 7/Subchapter IV/Part D/Subsection 666) 20.. Men are traumatized by divorce and loss of their children but the courts will not tolerate a loss of income. The court will not adjust child support accordingly. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively for said child and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage, SUV payment? You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to legislatures and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's interest. [sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest since the mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced. But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that implies. Vicious circle. BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child lives is somehow not in the child's interest? I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to pay the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves. I see. As usual, it's all about the money, not the child. Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay income tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is for the support of the child...even though she gets to spend it however she likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it for the support of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck down that portion of the Income Tax Act. Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada. See McKinney v. University of Guelph. So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. No wonder you're ****ed off ... or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the welfare of the child. Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child. My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of going to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was using the CS money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her latest "boy toy" n a two week southern vacation each year. She so poorly supported the boys that he had to buy their clothes and pay for their school supplies out of his own pocket even though these expenses were supposed to have been covered by the CS. When he presented his irrefutable evidence, the judge curtly told him it was none of the courts (or his !) business HOW his ex-wife spent the CS money because it was HERS ! Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice "theory" of parental responsibility ? They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of responsibility and accountability. In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been corrupted by that same court. It's tragic, but that's the system of government y'all have in Canada, and I doubt that there's anything y'all can do about it. As I said, no wonder you're ****ed off ... |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! If insurance isn't required of married parents, why should it be required of divorced paernts? However, I do believe that parents who have a relationship with their children will *want* to provide for them. That's the reason for the default 50/50 custody. Have a lovely day. Unless you don't want to. Such a sweet little thing you are. Thank you :-) |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women for having a child they didn't want. Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired these unwanted children as well? Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women can live off of public money and child support. How about if women start being prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle your mind a bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not talking about just the safe haven kids. Well, that was a non-answer. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS MEN, Moon! Pay attention! I am - and the woman is NOT legally required to terminate the pregnancy, no matter what you, or anyone else wants. give the child up for adoption, What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're adopted. or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for adoption. Oh yes they are. But you already knew that. They're all adopted into families that love them and raise them. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven' is not abandonment. Of course it is. Then let's abolish adoption - that's the same legally sanctioned abandonment. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Gini wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote "Gini" wrote "Fred" wrote .................................... Then we have nothing further to discuss. == Don't forget your ball, Fred. She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry unhampered. == Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell that correctly? I thin it is spelled hyperdunce. :-) |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Moon Shyne wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? How do we do it now ? What he means is that if you were in a relationship where having children was an agreed upon objective or wherein you had agreed to the commitment of having and supporting children, you don't get to *LEGALLY* walk away just because you might want to. (Note, this relationship doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage, it could be co-habitation, if could even be separate habitation but you've told the pregnant women that you agree to support the child...which influences her decision to have the child...you don't get to arbitrarily walk away if you've freely made a commitment... "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. The courts sort it out...like now... So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) The courts sort it out...just like now. ....Ken |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: Update, with a little further research I've discovered that apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man without asking questions...but only a couple... ...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption... So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ... [sanctimony deleted] Ah, can't take criticism...I see The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full responsibility for the child(ern) themselves... Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that task. But yes, it has to be done. Yes, that's "adoption"...it's *not* legal abandonment... ... in safe haven/drop off situations there is no such requirement, you just dump the infant and walk away...no strings attached and the child becomes the ward of the state. It's interesting that the primary objection by many to allowing fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an objection to the state "paying for" someone else's child yet this is *exactly* what occurs in a "safe haven/drop-off situation for women....hummm Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the child die in a dumpster. This fallacy is called a "red herring". It deflects the discussion away from the real point which is that the application and implementation of "safe haven" laws allow the mother a method to legally abrogate her parental obligations without allowing an equivalent legal method for the father to do the same thing. Since this means that men and women are being treated differently under the law, it is a clear violation of the Section I of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial responsibility. No, what we want is to be treated *equally* under the law. If the mother has legal methods to abrogate her parental obligations and to control her reproduction and her socio-economic situation, men should have equal or equivalent legal mechanisms allowing them to accomplish the same thing. I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably unconstitutional to boot... Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing interests to consider. The basic issue is fairness and justice. Will we extend to men, legal mechanisms to allow them to control their reproductive lives and their socio-economic situation which are equal or equivalent to those we have ALREADY extended to women...it's doesn't get any more complex than that Fred. All the rest, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over saving children or supporting children seems to me to be simple strawmen, erected to deflect discussion away from this basic issue. They're just crying crocodile tears since we *ONLY* seem interested in these things when it's the MAN who has to lose his freedom or his rights or, yes, his money...when it's a woman, we bend over backwards to accommodate her and to hell with the "best interests of the child"... ....Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 28th 05 05:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |