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 |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Gini" wrote in message news:xd3Xg.4957$ic1.1023@trndny06... "Fred" wrote Gini wrote: "Fred" wrote ................................ 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. Then we have nothing further to discuss. == Don't forget your ball, Fred. She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry unhampered. |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, give the child up for adoption, or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. I see your point, but shouldn't we also be thinking of the welfare of the unwanted child? Actually I think the - his semen, his choice, his responsibility - father should have the first right to care for the child, not the local fire department. It is total crap for the birth mother to define the child is "unwanted" without giving the father the right to raise his child. That's right: it's crap. But she's not gonna do what you want her to do just because you want her to do it. She's gonna do what she wants to do, even if it's illegal, and even if it results in the death of the child. That's just reality. So if she's not gonna give the father a chance, and if she's not gonna give adoption a chance, then absent a "safe haven" law there's no chance at all for the child; it's gonna end up in the dumpster. Is that what you want? I don't. So we can force men to be responsible, but, since we can't force poor widdle women to be responsible, we won't. We'll just go after the men even harder. Freddi must be a politician! If this "parent" is going to get rid of the unwanted child, then the child is going to be gotten rid of, one way or another. In my opinion, the responsible way to do so is through adoption, but for some reason that I do not understand a substantial number of "parents" are unwilling to do that. So we're left with the unpalatable choices of either the firehouse or the dumpster. Given those choices, I'll go for the firehouse, in the interest of protecting the unwanted child. Not the preferred outcome, but better than finding a newborn child dead in a dumpster. Even with the fire department drop off option young mothers are still flushing new newborns down the toilet, hiding them in coffee cans, and killing innocent babies. The feminist's consider this extension of late term abortion to be post child birth abortion and just another post-conception option for women. And in the legal system there are no meaningful punishments for these types of crimes. It's not as sterile as you try to make it sound. These young mothers are abusing their newborns no matter how you cut it. And calling them "parents" just disguises the real issue of mother neglect and abuse. I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. Hallelujah, Brother, you preach it. Kick that evil satan man. Amen!! Praise the Almighty Woman! Preach it, Brother!! |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: For a person who claims to be from Minnesota who has so many strong opinions about men's parental responsibility, you ought to understand the Minnesota laws regarding women's parental avoidance. Never heard of it, but then I've only been back for four years. "Under the Minnesota program, called "A Safe Place for Newborns,", a mother can anonymously drop off an unharmed newborn without fear of prosecution. She will be asked to volunteer medical information, but not required to do so. No identification required, no signed relinquishment, no mandatory medical information." So tell me, which do you prefer, having the child dropped off at a firehouse or hospital, or dropped into a dumpster? That's a very serious question, and I hope that you will respond in that spirit. I prefer having the mother prosecuted for child neglect and abuse, and force her to be accountable for her decisions to birth a child she didn't want. Which will end adoption completely, since you want to prosecute women for having a child they didn't want. Out of curiousity - are you planning on prosecuting the men who sired these unwanted children as well? Men are already being held responsible for unwanted children while women can live off of public money and child support. How about if women start being prosecuted the same way men are, Moon? Or does that just boggle your mind a bit too much? Oh, and just in case you missed it, I'm not talking about just the safe haven kids. Under this scenario she ignored her legal rights to use a post-coital drug to stop the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy, Legal right, not legal responsibility. We're talking about WOMEN having the SAME FORCED LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS MEN, Moon! Pay attention! give the child up for adoption, What do you think happens to children under the safe haven law? They're adopted. or take the child to term and raise it. Instead, she chose to have the child and then abandon it. Safe haven babies are no different from other children released for adoption. Oh yes they are. But you already knew that. The choice between child neglect and child murder is a false choice. Turning a child over to authorities in a legally sanctioned 'safe haven' is not abandonment. Of course it is. |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: Update, with a little further research I've discovered that apparently there are now 47 states with "safe haven" laws and, wonder of all wonders, a couple of them will also accept an infant from a man without asking questions...but only a couple... ...and NO Fred, this ISN'T adoption... So tell me, what are the differences? And more importantly, what is it about adoption that caused 47 state legislatures to feel it necessary to pass these "safe haven" laws? There must be something ... [sanctimony deleted] Again no real answer, but just a put-down. Typical (And this coming from a man--maybe a woman-- who doesn't even care enough to look up safe haven laws) The main difference between safe haven provisions and adoption is in adoption you have to have found other *suitable* parents who are willing to relieve you of your parental obligations by accepting full responsibility for the child(ern) themselves... Well, *someone* has to find adoptive parents. There are government agencies that perform that task. There are brokers that facilitate that task. But yes, it has to be done. snicker cop out!! Didn't even know what they were but is now vigorously defending them, as if he is the expert. chuckle ... in safe haven/drop off situations there is no such requirement, you just dump the infant and walk away...no strings attached and the child becomes the ward of the state. It's interesting that the primary objection by many to allowing fathers to "just walk away" (C4M) is an objection to the state "paying for" someone else's child yet this is *exactly* what occurs in a "safe haven/drop-off situation for women....hummm Which gets us back to that choice between "safe haven" and seeing the child dropped off at a firehouse, and no "safe haven" and seeing the child die in a dumpster. What y'all want fathers to be able to walk away from is financial responsibility. snicker What a dork I have no particular problem with safe have laws and would certainly rather see a child safe than left to die in a dumpster but I am upset than in virtually all of the statutes that I have actually read (37 to date) they speak specifically about the mother having this right and no one else...it's just another example of the huge systemic bias that favours mothers (note, not children) to the detriment of fathers...mothers have been given legal "reproductive rights" that DO NOT stem from biology while fathers have had their natural "reproductive rights" legally restricted. This is unfair, unjust and probably unconstitutional to boot... Ken, I don't mind you being resentful. You can be as resentful as you like. But this is not a simplistic issue, and there are competing interests to consider. In my opinion, the overriding interest must be in protecting the child, and if that means that we have to let mom walk away, distasteful though that may be, when the alternative is seeing the child die in a dumpster, then that's what we have to do. You don't have to like it, but for the sake of that child I really do think that you're gonna have to put up with it. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... ?-? wrote: "Fred" wrote in Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the welfare of the child. I hate to think that it is the last, but when you'd rather see a child put out on the street rather than see child support used to put a roof over its head, I really do have to wonder what's going on here. Please clarify. What's really going on is called alimony for the mother and the state gets a percentage of the outrages CS rates that they determine. It has nothing to do with the child! Then I take it that you would rather see the child put out on the street. I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to saying that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing is demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and the child be damned. chuckle Attack, attack, attack. You do know that not one penny of child support is legally required to be spent on a child, don't you? Disgusting. Yes, Fred, you are |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote ...................... I thought it would come to that. I mean, when you have to resort to saying that child support is alimony, which is a lie, all you're doing is demonstrating yet again that, to y'all, it's all about the money, and the child be damned. == It is about the money Fred--And the fact that the CP isn't required to spend a dime of it on the child. While you're sitting there at your computer pretending to know what you're talking about, some CP somewhere is spending the child's support money on pot, beer, and coke. That you support such neglect is repulsive! Don't come in here with your holier than thou attitude when there are children at high risk every day because of your ignorance of the system and refusal to get involved! What a bunch of crap! You don't give a damn about those kids! Go spew your vileness elsewhere. You're despicable! How many of those at risk kids have you adopted, Fred? Wanna know how many of them I and my family have adopted? Nah, you don't give a damn. All you care about is that the money keeps flowing to the custodial parent. You and your ilk are sickening! |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote "Gini" wrote "Fred" wrote ..................................... Then we have nothing further to discuss. == Don't forget your ball, Fred. She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry unhampered. == Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell that correctly? |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
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. Men take responsibility. Fred - I'm liking you more and more each day! You are right, men take responsibility and boys don't! My counselor described my s2bx as a person who is suffering from Narcissism. When I looked up the disorder I found my s2bx's described perfectly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciss...ality_disorder "These traits will lead narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they do not respond adequately to the parents' needs. This punishment may take a variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the parents' narcissistic needs." Examples include my s2bx blaming his middle child for the break up of our marriage. I had to talk to my step-son before they moved out to reassure him that I don't blame him, and I want him to know it within himself that the break up was not his fault. My s2bx told his 11 year old daughter "you are acting just like your mother, a slut." Not to mention the several times me and his friends would cringe when he would remind his kids out of anger that he never wanted them, and the only reason he ended up with custody was to avoid paying child support & alimony to their mother. He has called both his sons worthless, plus many other damaging things. Of course he was always under the influence of alcohol during his angry outbursts, but alcohol can't be used as an excuse for such horrifying behavior as a parent, or even as a husband. I had to often wonder if I married a man in his 40's or a teenager who just received his license to drive! Tracy |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Gini" wrote in message
news:_saXg.2291$P92.1318@trndny02... "teachrmama" wrote "Gini" wrote "Fred" wrote .................................... Then we have nothing further to discuss. == Don't forget your ball, Fred. She keeps telling people that ("we have nothing more to discuss") I'm sure everyone is devastated. Thing is, it keeps him from having to answer any of the hard questions, so he sail along with his ignorance and bigotry unhampered. == Sounds remarkably like Hyerdahl eh? BTW, where is Hyerdahl? Did I spell that correctly? She posts from soc.men. This tread is not seen in that newgroup. |
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 |