TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws
give all choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless
the mother chooses otherwise) and there are still some women
demanding more options and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife
of 20 years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back
beause **he** did not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice
the mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the
ultimate and unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting
for.

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the advent of
abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to the anti-male
court decisions and tactics. The first thing that will be needed to
fight for them is to fight for the equalization of rights AND
responsibilities of both parties. As long as abortion on demand is
available to women without any consideration to the father and as long
as "no-fault divorce" exists coupled to the anti-male legal procedures
available to women of questionable moral standards, nothing can change
for the better.


Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years,
he can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be
held responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his
income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the step to
become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a parent at any
time up until actually signing the document legalizing his
responsibility. In other words, he had a clear and definite legal choice
and had to take actual steps to become a parent. A married man is the
father and has no options other than to be celebate, which is not likely
to be a long or happy marriage.
It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a drunk
driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk driver to
drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current situation is
like putting the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just walk
away.


The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if
any at all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral responsibility
in regard to those rights.
The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If
women can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have
the same ability in the same time period to make the same decision to
abort his responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make both
parents truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born
children. This would also require some new laws such as a mother that in
any way hides the birth of a child from the father should not be able to
sue for child support, etc.





That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see a father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else, according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or
even after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available
to him. He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible
but only if SHE decides he is and to the extent she
allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more.
You cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


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

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

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally
subvert?
The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and have a
child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR he had the
ability to deny responsibility for the child.
YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights you
allowed him to have.




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

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

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

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not
have any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even
that doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact that
you regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal rights
remain yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.




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

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

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

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was wholly
dependent on you, either way.
You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless how
badly he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child he
produced that he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to have the
meaning you ascribed to it was still not legally binding in any manner.



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

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

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

No, you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm saying that responsibility should be equal to one's choices.
If anyone has unilateral choices, they should have unilateral
responsiblilty for those choices.





This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were
forced to continue to support them because that is what the
children were accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

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

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

Exactly!!!!!!


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

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


Agreed but it's all tied together.



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

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

I hope you're right.

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

That is strikingly odd when so many children are from divorced or
never-married families.




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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been fighting for over 3 decades and it only continues to worsen.
I don't even have a dog in this fight any more but I keep writing,
talking and reading about it.
The most promising items I ever got was form letters "thank you for your
opinions...." then more anti-male legislation following.
Phil #3

"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

[snip]

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

A concept FOREIGN to you.

Now, Chris, TM is well aware of the problems in the system of divorce
and custody, especially custody and child support.
She understands that well.


[snip]


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

I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less
damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?


I don't believe this is true at all. Men have NEVER divorced in numbers
like women have been over the past 3 or 4 decades.
Men are more likely to try to fix the problems while women are less
likely, especially with enticements from the government to divorce.
Phil #3

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to
me.

What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by
court
order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer
with their free will to be a parent.


But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!

I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to
reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless
of
what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having
parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you
want
the rights, you accept the responsibilities.

I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore
thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have
no
responsibilities--that it should all be his choice.

"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes to
a woman's choice to bear a child.

I vehemently disagree
with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at
any
time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth.

That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"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

[snip]

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

A concept FOREIGN to you.

Now, Chris, TM is well aware of the problems in the system of divorce
and custody, especially custody and child support.
She understands that well.

So long as she denies the relationship between rights (or "choice" as you
put it) and responsibilities, she does NOT understand it. And guess what,
she DENIES it!



[snip]


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

I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less
damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?


I don't believe this is true at all. Men have NEVER divorced in numbers
like women have been over the past 3 or 4 decades.

Correct, but the percentage who do may very well be on the decline based
upon the scenario I presented. But then again, her experience may be based
upon an isolated pocket out of the much larger group. There were houses in
New Orleans that actually remained dry.

Men are more likely to try to fix the problems while women are less
likely, especially with enticements from the government to divorce.

My claim is true. Personally, I know men who stay based upon those
circumstances. Unless, of course, they are lieing to me.

Phil #3

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so
much
pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution in
reverse.

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal
(or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all
choices
to
women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses
otherwise)
and there are still some women demanding more options and less
responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL
responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?

The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice.

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


That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course,
for
individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility,
that
doesn't
count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can
escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after
birth
by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He has
no
choices
beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides he
is
and
to
the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot
hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?

Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also
acquire
rights, no?

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!

Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find
that deplorable.

One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to me.

What a bunch of crap!

What's crap is FORCING a man into responsibility for a choice that was
impossible for him to make!

If you believe in free will any parent can define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights
and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by court order
are
only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer with their
free
will to be a parent.

Fine, then YOU stand up against their guns.



But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!

I say this right is more than voluntary.

I was referring to responsibility, not rights.

Fathers have every right to reach
out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless of what
any
court says.

How do you determine which laws one has the right to violate?

The children get it in the long run. And having parental
rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you want the
rights,
you accept the responsibilities.

Which is PRECISELY the problem! The so-called "family" court enforces
reponsibility while at the same time DENYING the accompanying rights.
Additionally, they heap such responsibility upon those who are incapable of
making the choice that merits the responsibility in the first place. Get it?

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must have
equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all
choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother
chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more
options and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea that
a man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause
**he** did not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate
and unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil. I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

The family and fatherhood has been virtually eliminated by modern
feminism. It's been dead for a couple of decades now since the advent of
abortion-as-birth-control and "no-fault divorce" added to the anti-male
court decisions and tactics. The first thing that will be needed to fight
for them is to fight for the equalization of rights AND responsibilities
of both parties. As long as abortion on demand is available to women
without any consideration to the father and as long as "no-fault divorce"
exists coupled to the anti-male legal procedures available to women of
questionable moral standards, nothing can change for the better.

Absolutely. But do you eally believe that the judges that sit in family
court are gong to listen and/or uphold the "rights/responsibilities"
argumant, and permit men to walk away from any responsibility just because
they do not have any rights? I cannot see that happening. I can, however,
see small inroads in the demand for 50/50 custody. It is going to be a long
and bloody battle. We need to fight for rights for men in several areas.
But we also need to fight for MORE RESPONSILILITY for the women who, at this
point in time, are living off of men, and have absolutely no means or desrie
to support themselves and their children. Holding women accountable would
be a MAJOR step!!



Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years, he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

Good point, TM.
The main difference is that he had to be proactive in making the step to
become a legal parent and could have chosen NOT to be a parent at any time
up until actually signing the document legalizing his responsibility. In
other words, he had a clear and definite legal choice and had to take
actual steps to become a parent. A married man is the father and has no
options other than to be celebate, which is not likely to be a long or
happy marriage.

My husband and I decided together to bring our children into the world. He
is not a "victim." We both love our children and want the best for them.
One is 13.5, and the other is truning 15 on Weds. How can you say that his
choice/responsibility is any less than that of an adoptive father? That is
where my understanding breaks down. I don't understand how you interpret
his parenthood as being *forced* when he loves and wanted our girls just as
much as I did.

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being driven by a drunk
driver. Even though the passenger may have wanted the drunk driver to
drive, is the passenger at all responsible? The current situation is like
putting the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and men likened to
passengers?



The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all, is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?


Yes, it puts the responsiblility directly on the only one capable of
making the decision. Unilateral rights deserve unilateral responsibility
in regard to those rights.

Do you really think you could ever bring that into law? If family courts
fight to give women the majority of the options now, what makes you think
you could **ever** get things changed to women being the ones being screwed
by the law and men having all the choices?

The much better choice would be to equalize the options of both. If women
can have an abortion for any or no reason, a father should have the same
ability in the same time period to make the same decision to abort his
responsibility toward a child he doesn't want. Then make both parents
truly equal (in responsibility and authority) of any born children. This
would also require some new laws such as a mother that in any way hides
the birth of a child from the father should not be able to sue for child
support, etc.

You know that I totally agree with that! Equal rights and responsibilities.
Default 50/50 custody. Fatherhood and Motherhood being equally important in
the lives of children.






That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I see a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course, for individuals just looking for ways to escape
responsibility, that doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility. She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him.
He has no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if
SHE decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for 12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal
responsibility to continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.


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

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

Not at all true, Phil.

What legal rights do you think he had that you could not legally subvert?

But I **didn't**!!! Doesn't personal integrity enter in at all?? He and I
agreed. We BOTH made the commitment! And continue to do so each and every
day. Just because the law says I could do otherwise does not mean that I
would disgrace myself in such a way. And there are many of us who feel the
exact same way! I even know quite a number of divorced couples who would
not **dream** of subjugating their children to the idiocy of fighting over
who is the most important parent. Honor still means something to most
people. We just happen to be caust up in a system that is run by
slimeballs, and it is easy to forget that most people would be shocked if
they ever really knew what is going onm and paid for by their hard-earned
tax dollars.

The only way this could be true is if his desire to produce and have a
child was legally binding on you in any form or fashion OR he had the
ability to deny responsibility for the child.

But, again, you are just looking at the slimey system--not at the honor and
dignity that are the biggest part of our commitment to each other and our
children. There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not to be
part of. Just because they are available does not mean that we should be
held responsible for what "might be done."

YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY the rights you
allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our children. That is far
more important than the idiot laws that produce possibilities that we would
never consider.





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

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

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

It doesn't matter how decent and caring a man is, he simply does not have
any choices in reproduction, (except to remain celebate and even that
doesn't always work thanks to the courts). Regardless the fact that you
regard this choice as a joint decision, 100% of the legal rights remain
yours and yours alone even if you CHOSE not to enforce them.

It is sad that you consider "legal rights" to be more important than
personal choice. I just do not see it that way. There ARE many, many good
and honorable people out there who will **never** avail themselves of the
legal rights you speak of, but you seem to be tarring all women with the
same brush.

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

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

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

No, that's where you're wrong.
You gave his input meaning. His 'choice' to have a child was wholly
dependent on you, either way.

So? Why is this so important to you? Do you really think that all women
are so shallow that they have their "legal rights" uppermost in their minds,
and are just waiting for an opportunity to harm their husbands?

You were under no legal obligation to produce a child regardless how badly
he wanted one and he would be responsible for any child he produced that
he didn't want. That you allowed his opinion to have the meaning you
ascribed to it was still not legally binding in any manner.

There you are with the "legal" again. I don't live my life with that as my
primary focus.




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

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

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

No, you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm saying that responsibility should be equal to one's choices.
If anyone has unilateral choices, they should have unilateral
responsiblilty for those choices.

But, Phil, men will **never** be able to bear children--any more than women
can create a child withou at leas some small help from a man. That is the
biology if it. Do you really think it would be right for all women
everywhere to always be 100% responsible for every child, with men **never**
having any responsibility for where they sow their seed?


This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were forced
to continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

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

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

Exactly!!!!!!


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

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


Agreed but it's all tied together.



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

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

I hope you're right.

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

That is strikingly odd when so many children are from divorced or
never-married families.

Yes, it is the best year yet for intact homes. A decade ago it fell at
around 50% I do think the tide is changing.





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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been fighting for over 3 decades and it only continues to worsen.
I don't even have a dog in this fight any more but I keep writing, talking
and reading about it.

I don't have a dog in the fight any more, either (although that could change
if the young lady decides to go back to school--then there would be 2 more
years). But I won't stop fighting, and taking , and sharing, and trying to
open eyes to what is happening.

"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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to
me.

What a bunch of crap! If you believe in free will any parent can
define
their own version of parental rights and responsibilities. Artifitial
rights and responsibilities thrush on divorced or single parents by
court
order are only enforcable as long as a parent alllows them to interfer
with their free will to be a parent.


But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a
child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!

I say this right is more than voluntary. Fathers have every right to
reach out to their children and exert their parental rights regardless
of
what any court says. The children get it in the long run. And having
parental rights comes with having parental responsibilities. If you
want
the rights, you accept the responsibilities.

I think, Bob, that Chris resents having the responsibilities that ore
thrust upon him. Since he seeks no rights, he feels that he should have
no
responsibilities--that it should all be his choice.

"Choice" is something which you know nothing about; except when it comes
to
a woman's choice to bear a child.

Liar, Chris. You ******choose****** to think of all women the same--as
users, and yourself as a poor widdle victim. That is a CHOICE you make.
And, in order to continue to validate you choice to think that way, you
****choose**** to speak ill of all women, as if all women are the authors of
your bitterness. Grow up, Chris.


I vehemently disagree
with his idea that a man should be entitled to walk away from a child at
any
time with no responsibilities because the man did not give birth.

That's because you incorporate the idea of being burdened with
responsibility for a choice which one is incapable of making.

Liar. You know you are lying, but you are doing so anyway, in order to
validate your own victimhood. I have said many, many times that today's
system is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you will only accept that if the person
you are talking to agrees 100% with your own pathetic stand on men NEVER
having any responsibility toward children unless they magnanimously choose
to provide for children that they are in no way obligated to. Your solution
is as evil as the system you hate so passionately.

"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
...

.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
snip
All that would do is flip over the same coin that is causing so
much
pain
today. We need a **different** solution--not the same solution
in
reverse.

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal
(or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give all
choices
to
women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother chooses
otherwise)
and there are still some women demanding more options and less
responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men
is
NOT
going
to fix that.

Do you even bother to examine what you're saying? If ALL
responsibility
is
removed from men, then, by definition, it IS fixed.
============================

What on earth are you talking about?

The same thing YOU are talking about; responsibility without choice.

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


That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some
woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite
stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some
individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course,
for
individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility,
that
doesn't
count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has
responsibility.
She
can
escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after
birth
by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He
has
no
choices
beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE decides
he
is
and
to
the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising
the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You cannot
hark
back
to the "birth choice" forever.

Fine. Then you can't go back to the rights either.
===========================
What rights are you referring to?

Well let's see: When someone chooses to bear a child, they also
acquire
rights, no?

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

I don't think that either parent should have rights that the other
parent
does not have, Chris!

Then you are also saying that neither parent should have any
responsibility
that the other does not. The problem with that is no one would ever be
able
to choose which rights/responsibilities they want. Sounds marxist to
me.

But you already know that. If a woman chooses to
bring a child into the world, ashe should not get an automatic siphon
into
a
man's pocket. If she cannot afford the child and the man does not
wish
to
be a father, the child should be given to someone who can afford to
care
for
it. This country's insistence on paying women to bring children into
the
world that they cannot afford to suport is ridiculous. But that does
not
mean that I believe that no man should ever be responsible for a child
simply because he does not have a uterus.

Nor do I. If he voluntarily accepts such responsibility, more power to
him!

Sure, Chris--but only as long as he wants to be responsible. And I find
that deplorable.

One time, I chose to take a friend's child to the park; thus accepting
responsibility for their welfare. Pretty deplorable, I might say.

You, Chris, wish to put into place a system as evil as the one you hate so
passionately. You are no better than the people you despise.

--
[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...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

If men are to have equal (or higher) responsibility, they must
have
equal (or higher) choice. The current system of sexist laws give
all
choices to women and all responsibility to men (unless the mother
chooses otherwise) and there are still some women demanding more
options and less responsibility for women.

And that is wrong--but taking all responsibility away from men is
NOT
going to fix that.

Yes, it will. It puts the responsibility on the ONE that has the
options.
If women demand 100% of the options in reproduction with it should
come
an equal % of responsibility.
The solution, of course, is to give both 50% of both responsibility
and
options.

I agree with that, Phil. What I do **not** agree with is the idea
that
a
man can lust after a "newer model" and walk out on his wife of 20
years
and their 9, 12, and 16 year old without looking back beause **he**
did
not give birth to them.


Which is nothing more than holding a man responsible for the choice
the
mother made. Even IF he was in favor of having children, the ultimate
and
unilateral decision is the mothers only.

So you no longer believe in family or fatherhood. How very, very sad,
Phil.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Yes, you do seem to be pretty miserable, Chris.

Apparently, I failed to communicate my message.




I still believe in both, and feel that they are worth fighting for.

Add to that, even if he
wants to be a father, supports the mother AND the children for years,
he
can be kicked out of the family without much trouble and still be
held
responsible for paying the mother a large percentage of his income.

Which is just as wrong as giving him the legal right to just walk away
because he does not have a uterus. What do you say about the men in
families who adopted children? Shall they be held to supporting thier
children, even though they did not bear those children themselves?

That depends on how the contract is written.

Of course, for you, Chris, the **only** answer is that the WOMAN should
bear
the full brunt of the responsibility. That is obvious from reading what
you
write.

And you'd be correct. Full choice = FULL responsibility. I always believed
that four quarters have equal value to a dollar; but your argument is
starting to make me second guess.




The idea that men are responsible while handing all the options to
women
and allowing them to choose their level of responsibility, if any at
all,
is completely unpalatable.

Of course it is. But telling men that they have nos responsibility
whatsoever for children is **NOT** going to fix that, is it?

YES, it is!

For you, of course that seems the answer. Then you can impregnate at will
and never have to worry about it. All hail the mighty man, Chris.

It is PRECISELY the thought process demonstrated in the above statements
that runs the "child support" industry.


Who
cannot even begin to see that he is just as biased in favor of men as the
feminists he dplores are in fovor of women.

Not even close. My only "bias" is to be in favor of responsibilty = rights.
That you reject such concept makes it no less so.
Impregnation is not a choice; only the act which may or may NOT lead to it
is. Even so, pregnancy does not equal a born child!








That, of course, is the root of the disagreement, Chris. I
see
a
father
as
a father--not just some individual providing for some woman's
children
until
he is tired of doing so. You seem to take the opposite stand.

For what it's worth, he is both a father AND "some individual".
And
guess
what, he IS providing for some woman's child. And guess what
else,
according
to their rules, he can walk at any time. It simply follows.

chuckle He is raising his own children as well, Chris. Of
course,
for individuals just looking for ways to escape responsibility,
that
doesn't count, does it?


THE problem here is that she has choice, he has responsibility.
She
can escape the responsibility of her choices by abortion or even
after
birth by legal abandonment neither choice is available to him. He
has
no choices beyond conception yet is responsible but only if SHE
decides he is and to the extent she allows/demands.

And once the time period for legal abandonment is past, and they
are
raising the children together, that doesn't matter any more. You
cannot hark back to the "birth choice" forever.

Why not? If, like Chris said, he generously made your house payment
for
12 years and suddenly stopped he would have no legal responsibility
to
continue.

A child and a house are 2 different things, Phil.

Yet the principle is the same.

Not at all.

Because?

A child is a human being, Chris. Or has your cynicism taken you so far
down
that you equate a house to a human being?

Can you say "analogy"?





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

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

Not at all true, Phil.

Perhaps on YOUR planet.

I know you always need to believe that women are out to rob every man they
can of everything they can get.

Some, YES; but not all. Your point?

But not all of us choose to live in your
sad little world, Chris.




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

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

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

Irrelevant. The fact remains that legally both parents are NOT equal.
His
claim is true!

Of course, in your eyes it is irrelevant, Chris. It does not fit the
little
world you have constructed for yourself. No man can ever choose to have
children--he always has to be cheated by a conniving woman--which is the
only kind of woman there is, right?

Wrong; at least in my opinion. But your statement is correct: no man can
EVER choose to have (bear) children. Did you have a point?





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

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

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

On YOUR planet, that may be.



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

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

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

Women get women pregnant?
I don't believe he mentioned anything about lieing regarding any
children.
Even so, legally, he has no obligation to be with her children, nor does
he
have any right.

chuckle Sad, sad little man.......

Ad hominem.



Is that truly how you want things to
be?



This sounds eerily like those fathers who found out years after the
birth of their children that they weren't their kids yet were
forced
to
continue to support them because that is what the children were
accustomed to, not that it was necessary.

But **that** is fraud! It is not at all the same thing.

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

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

A concept FOREIGN to you.

That is what you need to believe so you can tar all women with the same
brush.

Untrue.

You are as bad as the feminists you so deplore.

Thank you for your opinion about me. Only problem, I'm not the topic. Shall
we return to it?




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

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



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

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

I hope you're right.

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

I've heard that fewer men are opting for divorce figuring it's less
damaging
to live with a contentuous woman than to go broke with the risk of
imprisonment. FINE choice the government people give men, huh?

chuckle Leave it to poor, sad little Chris to find a negative reason
for
a positive statistic.

"Negative" and "positive" are merely opinions subject to the speaker. In
this case, that'd be you.

[note: It is quite common for the the losing side of a debate to attack the
opponent rather than their position. A convenient way to shift the spotlight
from their faulty position to the opponent's alleged character. Only problem
is that one's character says absolutely NOTHING about the truth value of
their claims.]





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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, like continuing to go back to "family" court until you're broke.
Uhuh.
The whackjobs in "family" court are so determined to protect their
industry
that they will shed their blood in doing so.

And, given half a chance, you would gladly replace the whackjobs in family
court today with whackjobs more to your liking so you would bear
absolutely
no responsibility for any children you might help produce.

"Help produce"? Well guess what, the grandmother "helped produce" the child
too. Without HER biological contribution, there would be no child. So guess
she should also bear responsibility.
Indeed, I would GLADLY replace the "family" court whackjobs with "whackjobs"
who can make the connection between responsibilities and rights. But then
there would no longer be any such "family" court.