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 |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. I can understand that. But I don't think the law should require anything of him, you, or anyone else than it requires from married parents. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: 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. And you won't answer my question, either. Once again, you studiously avoid answering the tough ones. That's intellectually dishonest, Bob. I never typed that. You are mixing up the posters. I am rapidly getting the impression that, given the choice between having a "safe harbor" law that saves the life of a child while letting the irresponsible mother walk away unpunished, and not having a "safe harbor" law and seeing the child die in a dumpster so that the irresponsible mother can be punished, you'd prefer to see the child die in a dumpster. What say you? About THOSE CHOICES, Bob. No dad; she's not gonna do that. No adoption; she's not gonna do that. She's irresponsible, remember? You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. What say you? I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist. Feminism, and your definition, are based on class warfare principles applied to gender differences. Your dictionary definition proves my point. Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the following: "masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance". So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are for male dominance. That explains a lot ... (8-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of view, maybe? But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided answering: You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which do you choose? Let's have an honest answer this time. Save the baby. BUT I am against putting up billboards all along the Interstate Highway System to alert pregnant girls they can avoid parental responsibility by dropping off unwanted babies. My point is still the same - These laws don't work because a teen trying to hide a pregnancy with also hide a child birth. Get it yet? |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Nice try, though. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Bob Whiteside wrote:
I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the following: "masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance". So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are for male dominance. That explains a lot ... (8-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of view, maybe? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided answering: You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which do you choose? Let's have an honest answer this time. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the following: "masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance". So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are for male dominance. That explains a lot ... (8-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of view, maybe? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided answering: You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which do you choose? Let's have an honest answer this time. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this just PMS? What a freakin' loony! |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
You just want it all your way, don't you, Lady? You married (or didn't
marry and procreated with) the wrong man, now everything with a penis is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe it is time that you took a serious look at yourself and the reasons behind your diatribes against men. Stop blaming them for your self-created problems. Call your community mental health facility and get an appointment soon--before you go postal and really do some damage! "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the following: "masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance". So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are for male dominance. That explains a lot ... (8-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of view, maybe? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided answering: You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which do you choose? Let's have an honest answer this time. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Fred" wrote in message . net... Bob Whiteside wrote: I say you are on the wrong side of this issue, even for a feminist, and here is why. Have you ever looked at the dictionary definition of "feminism"? I was astounded to find that it means ": the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". That makes a feminist an advocate of the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. And that definition makes a feminist a Marxist/Socialist ... Feminists hate Capitalism because it allows for inequality to occur as part of the natural order of human behavior. And you, a masculinist, like capitalism precisely *because* it allows for inequality, and specifically for male superiority and dominance through control of the money. It's always about the money with you masculinists. That's the mechanism you wish to use to enforce your male superiority and dominance upon women. So, I wondered, if you are not a feminist, which I am sure you would agree is an accurate characterization, then what are you? That led me to the following: "masculinist : an advocate of male superiority or dominance". So let's see, feminists are for equality of the sexes, masculinists are for male dominance. That explains a lot ... (8-) While you have your dictionary out look up "straw man". This one was a classic. Set up a different argument. Then attack it. Then claim you won the argument. Not at all. It's very relevant. Goes to motivation. These laws don't work. Statistically only a couple of babies per year are dropped off at safe havens, but dozens are abandoned and left to die by their birth mothers. And what is your problem with saving a couple of newborn children from ending up dead in a dumpster? Get in the way of the masculinist point of view, maybe? [So I asked the questions immediately above, and Ken, as he usually does, conveniently avoided answering them. I claim that he did not answer them because in order to do so he would have to acknowledge his masculinist world view, and specifically the desire for male superiority and dominance, even at the expense of the lives of a few babies.] But let's return to yet another question that you have studiously avoided answering: You have two choices: save the child, or see it die in a dumpster. Which do you choose? Let's have an honest answer this time. Save the baby. BUT ... BUT nothing, Ken. You can't side with saving the baby while condemning the program that saved the baby, because without the program that saved the baby, the baby ends up dead in a dumpster. And I don't care if it only saves a few babies, that's a few that, in your world, would have ended up dead in a dumpster. I really do believe, Ken, that you would be willing to see those babies dead in a dumpster if it meant that you could once again enforce your masculinist ideas of male superiority and dominance over women, as those ideas were enforced in the past. You claim to want equality. I do not believe you. I believe that you want inequality, as evidenced by your comments regarding capitalism quoted above, by your extreme reluctance to answer admittedly difficult questions lest they reveal your masculinist agenda of dominance and male superiority, and by the generally masculinist world view that flows through your many messages. So I guess that we're going to have to agree to disagree, on a number of subjects: I support equality of the sexes. You support male superiority and dominance. To me, it's about saving the baby. To you, it's about asserting male superiority and dominance through control of the money. To me, it's about taking responsibility. To you, it's about using the irresponsibility of others to justify your own irresponsibility. That being said, I can see no constructive purpose in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day, Ken. Try not to hate too much. Actually it's me again. You responded to Ken as if he is me. And then you responded to me as if I am Ken. Are you having your period? Or is this just PMS? What a freakin' loony! I'll say! Maybe she sould get out into the real world and get a job. She spends far too much time mulling over how she was done wrong by a man who was more adolescent than man. I guess she thinks she is owed by every man alive now. Geesh! |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:RzLWg.10968$H7.5814@edtnps82... Fred wrote: Gini wrote: "teachrmama" wrote ............................ And you, Fred, are totally *dismissing* WOMEN'S responsibilities! I am a woman, and I find it demeaning that you keep harping on what MEN should do, but not a hint about how WOMEN should handle their responibilities in the same situation. Everything a woman does after the sex act is a consequence of where that mean old man left his semen. Nonsense! Or maybe I'm just reading you wrong--why don't you clearly delineate what the woman's responsibilities are after the consequence of pregnancy becomes an issue. == A ride to the CSE office? (Because she's *owed* it, of course.) I guess that the matter is best explained by reference to the theme of the game Fable: "For every choice, a consequence." It's too bad that you seem to grasp the obvious fact that all post conception choices are the woman's and therefore, in accordance with the precepts of "Natural/Fundamental" Justice, all the consequences that follow from those choices should also be hers. So he chooses to spread his semen hither and yon, and she chooses to let him spread it in her. And let's say that the consequence is pregnancy. But that's as far as the "consequence" of his "spreading his sperm around" go. After that the woman has many options and CHOICES...even if she decides (note the word "decides") not to abort the fetus, that to, is a CHOICE, the consequence of which will most likely be the birth of a child... And if the child is born, how does that absolve the man from any responsibility for or to the child? Isn't it still 50% genetically his child, and legally his child as well? Now there are other choices to be made, in this case by her, and from those choices will spring consequences in turn. Yes, as I noted above, but ALL post conception choices are HER choices, to hold him responsible for the consequences that follow from HER choices is fundamentally unfair, unjust and, on top of all that, most likely unconstitutional... So because she has choices that pertain strictly to undergoing (or not undergoing) a medical and surgical procedure, you think this absolves the man from any responsibility, even though it's still his child? When the father legally has 50% of the rights to match his responsibilities, the we can come back to his responsibilities toward the child. Until he becomes an actual parent in the life of the child he helped create--50/50 with the mother, he also should not be the bankroll. So if one parent dumps all of the responsibility onto the other parent, the parent shouldering the responsibility gets all the rights, and the parent who dumped their responsibilities gets no rights? Depends. Unmarried: default 50/50 with both mom and dad having the same rights to walk away in the exact same time frame. But the default 50/50 is the key. Married and divorcing: default 50/50. No rights to walk away. If Dad wants only 20%, he pays mom to handle his other 30 percent. If mom wants 80/20 and can get dad to agree, she handles the other 30 % she chooses on her own. Other than that, they pay for their own expenses. "No rights to walk away". How do you propose stopping someone from doing so? "they pay for their own expenses" So one parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, and the other parent doesn't cover the kids with health insurance, either. They both insist it's the other's expense. So what happens, you just hang the kids out to dry and no one is required to provide health insurance? (or any other expense that both parents insist isn't their expense, it's the *other* parent's expense) Absolutely, Moon. Who gave kids of divorce more rights than kids of marriage? Why should kids of divorce be guaranteed health insurance when kids of marriage are not? As long as the basic needs are met, why should *anyone* be forced to provide sometning he/she doesn't want to? Well, if you think it's ok to not be required to provide for children on the basis of "I don't want to", then there's probably not a whole lot more that's going to be said here. I don't think divorced parents should be forced to provide any more than married parents are forced to provide, Moon. Married parents are not required to work. Married parents are not required to provide health insurance, and in many cases are not required to provide medical attention. Married parents are not required to successfully battle alcoholism. But golly gosh gee whiz, you sure want that mean old CP to work, and all the rest! No, I don't. If that's what the CP chooses to do, fine. But I don't think the CP should be required to do any more than married parents are required to do, either. You're just complaining because you choose to do all those things and would probably like more help from your children's father. I wasn't complaining at all - I was pointing out some of the things that you are requiring of your stepdaughter's mother, that are NOT required of married parents. My husband's daughter's mother has never worked a day in her life, Moon! And I don't require her to do anything in any case. Well, you've sure complained about it enough Nice try, though. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: 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. I am aware of what Canada's notion of "natural justice". I know that it allows Canada to declare age discrimination to be legal even though it is unconstitutional; see McKinney v. University of Guelph. So if you expect me to buy any argument based on that concept, you are swimming upstream. 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. Yes, it's easier to cut the article and make some unrelated, self-serving comments when you can't rebut the points made... I did rebut your crap, in whole. More efficient to do it that way than in pieces, and the result is the same. No, acvtually you didn't even *address* the points I made let alone "rebut" them...you snipped the article, inserted some self-serving statements and declared victory...nice try (well not even that nice a try actually)...and definitely no cigar. All you want to do is to be able to walk away from the mess you make when you spread your sperm hither and yon, because being responsible is so *inconvenient*, mostly to your wallet, which is the bottom line with you boys anyway. Y'all deny informed consent, y'all deny fairness and equity, y'all deny the child itself. It is the ultimate selfishness. Disgusting. What's disgusting is a mangina like you waltzing in here with no knowledge (didn't even know about legal abandonment or the statutes governing your own state of residence) and less sense and started to lecture people who've *personally* lived through some of the experiences that *YOU* insist can't happen...now *THAT'S* disgusting... ....Ken |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Things to think of before you get married again..
Fred wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote: Fred wrote: Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something, You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay income tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is for the support of the child...even though she gets to spend it however she likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it for the support of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck down that portion of the Income Tax Act. Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada. See McKinney v. University of Guelph. Apparently *ANOTHER* case where you are shooting your mouth off without knowing what you are talking about...do you even *know* what the SCofC reference was about or even *read* the decision ? I ask because if you had you either are blatantly misrepresenting the case or are just plain stupid as a bag of hammers. Just to explain it to you and those others who might be looking in a nd laughing at you...the McKinney V University of Guelph wasn't about forced retirement, though that was the cause of the SCofC reference, the reference specifically asked the Court to resolve 5 constitutional questions...mandatory retirement wasn't one of those since mandatory retirement in the public sector in Canada *IS* illegal. The five questions all boiled down to "Are universities, defacto, part of the government or are they private sector institutions" if the court had found that they were part of the government, their mandatory retirement policies would have been illegal. The Court ruled on all five points that universities ARE NOT part of the government and, in exactly the same way as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights DOES NOT apply to the US private sector, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Universities in Canada... So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. This from a man who lives in a nation where everyday millions of men and children have their rights under their own Constitution and Bill of Rights violated in favour of women...humm or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give a damn about the welfare of the child. Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child. My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of going to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was using the CS money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her latest "boy toy" n a two week southern vacation each year. She so poorly supported the boys that he had to buy their clothes and pay for their school supplies out of his own pocket even though these expenses were supposed to have been covered by the CS. When he presented his irrefutable evidence, the judge curtly told him it was none of the courts (or his !) business HOW his ex-wife spent the CS money because it was HERS ! Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice "theory" of parental responsibility ? They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of responsibility and accountability. Ah, so what you're saying is that it's OK to discriminate against men because that's the "context" in which we live...humm. I agree that this is the context in which we live, the difference between you and I is that *I* don't agree that it is right, just or even constitutional and want to see it changed while you are content to live with your chains... In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been corrupted by that same court. You really should do some research on the topics you wish to spout off about before you (figuratively) open your mouth and insert you foot...again...there aren't many on these NGs who suffer fools gladly, except perhaps for the comic relief...which, I must say, you supply a plenty... :-) ....Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 28th 05 05:27 AM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 28th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |