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 |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote .................................. Last time I looked, we called that "adoption." == Then I suggest you look again. I asked you what "baby dropoff" was. Instead of responding with substance, you respond with a sleazy cheap shot. == "Sleazy?" "Cheap shot?" You don't get out much, do you Fred? == If you are going to play cheap, sleazy games, I won't deal with you. Now then, what's "baby dropoff"? And don't refer me to Andre's screed. I want a substantive description that differentiates between whatever y'all are talking about and adoption. Now get to work or go away. == Do your own work. (You can't afford to hire me. ) See, I already know what it means so I don't have to look it up. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Tracy" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message . net... All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for their choices. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and then there those who see they are responsible for their actions/choices. I don't see anything wrong with his askling that both take responsibility--I'd just like to know what he thinks the woman's responsibilities are. Is that so bad? |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Tracy wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for their choices. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and then there those who see they are responsible for their actions/choices. Exactly. These boys are the ultimate in sexist selfishness. If they can't control the woman, they want nothing to do with her ... and their children. And, of course, that means not having to support the children that they actively, willingly, and with informed consent participated in procreating. "She's being irresponsible!", they bleat, claiming this as justification for their own claims to irresponsible behavior. Well, even if/when she *is* being irresponsible, that absolutely does not justify their being irresponsible in turn. This is simply a copout. And for the record, I refer to them as "boys" because in my opinion they are not men. I'm pretty sure they don't care what you think, little lady. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Andre Lieven wrote:
Gads, are you rude! Maybe so ... Fine. You refuse to carry on civilized discourse, and I have no interest in validating your hateful, sexist, inferiority complex. Since you refuse to do so, perhaps someone else will describe the differences, if any, between "baby dropoff" and adoption. This discussion is over. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote Gini wrote: wrote Fred - You are Fred aren't you, and not Cindy, Sharon, Luoise, or some other feminist disguising yourself to make it look like you are chivalrous? == We frequently get the male feminists when they are the second husband and resent the bio dad's boat, car, food, etc. They all seem to think bio dad owes them a higher standard of living. Really, they do. Bio dad owes second husband nothing. Bio dad owes his kids. He is, after all, bio dad. == 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. Your ignorance is showing again. 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. |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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) |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote: wrote: Fred - You are Fred aren't you, and not Cindy, Sharon, Luoise, or some other feminist disguising yourself to make it look like you are chivalrous? What kind of a stupid question is that? [more abject stupidity deleted] Just as I thought ... attack the messenger and ignore the message. Hypocrite. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred ) wrines, and further displays utter ignorance:
Andre Lieven wrote: Gads, are you rude! Maybe so ... Fine. Yes, I am. Because I know what I'm talking about. You refuse to carry on civilized discourse, laughs Yeah, I tend to get a bit testy with morons who know NOTHING. Your solution is to know... something. and I have no interest in validating your hateful, sexist, inferiority complex. Massive Ignorant Idiot Projection Since you refuse to do so, perhaps someone else will describe the differences, if any, between "baby dropoff" and adoption. Many have. Looking up " Legal Abandon Laws " which are NOT adoption would help you, but apparently, you cannot even help yourself. This discussion is over. laughs The White Flag Of Victory. How... pathetic. Run to mama, little loon boi. Andre |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ......................... I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's always about the money with y'all. It's disgusting, really. == Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff? What's "baby dropoff"? [sanctimony deleted] ...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress. All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office, hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they *require* that he provide identification...for future child support no doubt... If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can read yourself... Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose. The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the firehouse. How about you? |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
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. Personally, given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse/hospital. Best of a set of bad alternatives. |
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 |