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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth. We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not necessarily agree with you on that point. That's because you don't necessarily understand the law. I understand the law, Chris. Just what do you understand about the law? I don't agree with the way CS is handled at all. "Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS! But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other. According to their law, I could not be MORE fair. chuckle You wish Correction: I KNOW! But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not ring fair with their law. If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child support? Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption. Not to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests with YOU. You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. Phil #3 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip .. You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth. We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not necessarily agree with you on that point. That's because you don't necessarily understand the law. I understand the law, Chris. Just what do you understand about the law? I don't agree with the way CS is handled at all. "Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS! But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other. According to their law, I could not be MORE fair. chuckle You wish Correction: I KNOW! But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not ring fair with their law. If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child support? Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption. Not to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests with YOU. You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question is whose feelings trump whose, and why? Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen when it comes to fire. Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both blue AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing green grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy it. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, They gonna force an abortion? and the same newborn drop off rights. Swipe the kid from the mother and dump it off at the local firestation. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. You're just hung up on past events. Problem is, such events have absolutely NO bearing on rights/responsibilities. That'd be like saying if I knock on your door every day for one year, hand you a hundred dollar bill, then walk away, on day 366 I am obligated to give you another hundred dollar bill! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth. We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not necessarily agree with you on that point. That's because you don't necessarily understand the law. I understand the law, Chris. Just what do you understand about the law? I don't agree with the way CS is handled at all. "Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS! But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other. According to their law, I could not be MORE fair. chuckle You wish Correction: I KNOW! But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not ring fair with their law. If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child support? Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption. Not to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests with YOU. You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question is whose feelings trump whose, and why? Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen when it comes to fire. Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both blue AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing green grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy it. We've had this discussion. Married couples who choose to bring children into the world are bound by the responsibility to provide for those children. The RIGHTS need to be straightened out--that's where the current system is so messed up. But one cannot just shrug off the responsibility of parenthood because he is tired of it. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is atrocious behavior to me. That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but fiscal matters, he does have a point. Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the situation (choice). Phil #3 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is atrocious behavior to me. That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but fiscal matters, he does have a point. Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the situation (choice). But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary can abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other fathers that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is atrocious behavior to me. That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but fiscal matters, he does have a point. Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the situation (choice). But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary can abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other fathers that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents. Straw man AND slippery-sope. The man no longer being penalized for a choice he is incapable of making TOTALLY fixes such inequity! No one is saying anything about being "disposable"; except YOU. No one is mentioning anything about "fixing" something. The ONLY issue is whether or not 2 and 2 is adding up to 4; and with the "child support" folks it does not. TO say that fathers will STILL have money extorted from them is to say that nothing has changed. Is someone advocating that? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent's conduct." I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there are signs of immorality? To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no responsibility. You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law. Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common. (Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the fraud). The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too. I addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it can be proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is culpable as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1) profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional fraud. I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all know that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it is a win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held responsible for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible for their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things are. Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth. We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not necessarily agree with you on that point. That's because you don't necessarily understand the law. I understand the law, Chris. Just what do you understand about the law? I don't agree with the way CS is handled at all. "Child support" is immoral, ALWAYS! But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other. According to their law, I could not be MORE fair. chuckle You wish Correction: I KNOW! But since you claim the contrary, explain why my prescription does not ring fair with their law. If you are correct, Chris, why are you still being forced to pay child support? Your above question is a complete non sequitur as well as an assumption. Not to mention, no one is ever FORCED to pay "child support". They are simply renting their driver's license and/or purchasing their freedom. Now, since the claim is yours that my position is unfair, the burden of proof rests with YOU. You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. My best guess is that your argument is emotionally driven. My question is whose feelings trump whose, and why? Let's get out of the psychology class and go to the math class. Rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as is fuel and oxygen when it comes to fire. Another way to look at it: The color green cannot exist without both blue AND yellow. But yet you're trying to convince me that you're drawing green grass with only a blue crayon. For some bizarre reason, I just don't buy it. We've had this discussion. Married couples who choose to bring children into the world are bound by the responsibility to provide for those children. This would be true IF your assumption were true; but it's not. ONLY women make such choice. The RIGHTS need to be straightened out--that's where the current system is so messed up. But one cannot just shrug off the responsibility of parenthood because he is tired of it. One (he) does NOT have such responsibility in the first place. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... snip . You have consistently maintained that *any* man should be able to walk away from his children at *any* time with no legal obligation toward those children, Chris. As much as I disagree with the system currently in place, I absolutely would not want it replaced with *your* system. But that's just it! My "system" is actually nothing more than the missing part to THEIR system. It is THEM, not I, who have determined such an arrangement by their system. It simply follows. No, it isn't, Chris. You just want it to be. It is as wrong as what is happening now. We need solutions--not more selfishness on the part of either gender. Actually, TM, he does have a point. If mothers are the only ones with any authority after conception, then what follows is that mothers should be the only ones forced to accept the results of their unilateral decision. Mothers can even legally abandon a newborn (age varies by state) and walk away with no questions asked. Certainly she has the choice over the birth or abortion as well as a near guarantee of custody and the promise of a monthly paycheck for her choice. Either fathers deserve the same or similar rights as women or neither do. I do not disagree with part of that. Fathers should have the same ability to decide not to be parents as mothers have, and the same newborn drop off rights. However, I draw the line at the idea that a man, because he is a man, should be able to walk out of a 10 year marriage which produced 3 children with NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER toward those children. Especially since Chris uses the "sole right to bring conception to birth" argument to negate a decade of parenting. I actually disagree with it all. Abortion, legal abandonment and using children as pawns in the physical control or mind games of adults is atrocious behavior to me. That said, as long as the system views fathers as disposable in all but fiscal matters, he does have a point. Responsibility should be matched by, and equal to, the authority over the situation (choice). But saying that a married man who decides to run away with his secretary can abandon his family with impunity does *not* fix that situation. When fathers start seeing themselves as disposable, and convincing other fathers that they, too, are disposable, then we've lost. There is not fixing a situation when both sides agree that there is nothing to fix. It won't change the fact that fathers will have money forcefully taken from them to support the children--it will just make it that much easier, because the fathers themselves will agree that they are not necessary as parents. Straw man AND slippery-sope. The man no longer being penalized for a choice he is incapable of making TOTALLY fixes such inequity! You are WRONG, Chris!! The man may not have carried the child in his womb and brought it to birth, but he CHOSE to be a parent to that child evey bit as much as the mother did. If we are talking about unmarried parents, shortly after the birth of the child, it is one thing--but to use the same reason to let a father of teenagers walk away with no responsibility is ridiculous!! No one is saying anything about being "disposable"; except YOU. No one is mentioning anything about "fixing" something. The ONLY issue is whether or not 2 and 2 is adding up to 4; and with the "child support" folks it does not. TO say that fathers will STILL have money extorted from them is to say that nothing has changed. Is someone advocating that? YOU are advocating fathers beingdisposable--YOU are saying that because they do not have wombs, they are free to walk away whenever they want to. YOU, Chris, and saying that fathers are not important. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 07:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |