Things to think of before you get married again..

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:iQXWg.7926$P7.2989@edtnps89...
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Fred wrote:

Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine of
informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof because
those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's "inconvenient"
as in financially inconvenient, because at the end of the day it's
always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.


==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same,
such as abortion, baby dropoff?


What's "baby dropoff"?


God, you're in here, talking like you're the great know-it-all
authority of child custody and parental responsibility and
reproductive rights and you don't even know what child-drop-off is ?
What an arse-h*%e...you didn't have much credibility but you've
certainly destroyed what little you did have with this...
Just for your eludication...child-drop-off is consequence free,
legal abandonment of an infant child by a mother, sometimes also
called "safe haven" laws or "hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37
states have "safe haven" laws with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
hospital or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in
most case they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are
absolutely NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states
this provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me...and you probably won't...there's plenty
of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that you can
read yourself...

...Ken

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...

...Ken

I'd be willing to bet that it remains that the mother can refute the
abandonment by the father (claiming she never wanted to abandon the
baby), retrieve the child and force the father to pay child support, a
situation that is not available for the father in the reverse situation.
Phil #3

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
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 ...

There is. It's called expanding women's choices.
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine
of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof
because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's
"inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end
of the day it's always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same,
such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away,
no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Tracy wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for
their choices. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take
responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no
different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking
problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There
are those who refuse to take responsibility for their
actions/choices and then there those who see they are responsible
for their actions/choices.

Exactly.

These boys are the ultimate in sexist selfishness. If they can't
control the woman, they want nothing to do with her ... and their
children. And, of course, that means not having to support the
children that they actively, willingly, and with informed consent
participated in procreating.

"She's being irresponsible!", they bleat, claiming this as
justification for their own claims to irresponsible behavior. Well,
even if/when she *is* being irresponsible, that absolutely does not
justify their being irresponsible in turn. This is simply a copout.

And for the record, I refer to them as "boys" because in my opinion
they are not men.

I'm pretty sure they don't care what you think, little lady.


For me, I'm NEVER impressed when a woman tries to tell me how a man
should act, especially when forgiving women for acting the same way.
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
All I'm asking is that both men and women take responsibility for
their choices. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with asking both men and women to take
responsibility for their choices, and I'll add actions. It is no
different then my s2bx trying to place blaim on me for his drinking
problem, and prior to me it was his first ex-wife's fault. There are
those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices and
then there those who see they are responsible for their
actions/choices.

I don't see anything wrong with his askling that both take
responsibility--I'd just like to know what he thinks the woman's
responsibilities are. Is that so bad?


That's the problem, TM, she doesn't want women to be responsible for
ANYTHING except what they *choose* to take on while retaining the
ability to change their mind at any time.
Phil #3

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:Qx_Wg.8684$vC3.7771@dukeread02...


Phil wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:23tWg.8391$vC3.1338@dukeread02...


Phil wrote:



Equality is bigotry??? I suppose freedom is slavery as well?

Your attitude here is double-plus ungood.

- Ron ^*^



You speak newspeak. Kool

Don't the Family Court judges, lawyers, legislators, and their
hangers-on all speak it as well?

- Ron ^*^

Fluently.
Phil #3

"Phil" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine
of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof
because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's
"inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the end
of the day it's always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother does
the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven" laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare office,
hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother." Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk away,
no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.

Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.

Andre

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Phil" ) writes:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:
Gini wrote:

"Fred" wrote
.........................

I read your entire message. What it boils down to is yet
another
attempt to evade your responsibilities by ignoring the doctrine
of informed consent. Sorry, but men can't just spread their
semen
hither and yon and walk away from the consequences thereof
because those consequences are ... *inconvenient*. That's
"inconvenient" as in financially inconvenient, because at the
end
of the day it's always about the money with y'all.

It's disgusting, really.

==
Then I presume you find it equally disgusting when the mother
does
the same, such as abortion, baby dropoff?

What's "baby dropoff"?

[sanctimony deleted]

...child-drop-off is consequence free, legal abandonment of an
infant child by a mother, sometimes also called "safe haven" laws
or
"hatchery" laws. Currently at least 37 states have "safe haven"
laws
with more in progress.
All the mother has to do is take the child to a "safe" drop
off
point...she can't just throw it in a dumpster, which is what some
used to do...such as a police station, fire station, welfare
office,
hospital
or medical clinic etc. There are *NO* strings attached, in most
case
they aren't even allowed to ask her her name so there are
absolutely
NO legal consequences...note that in all but two states this
provision is NOT available to the father and those two they
*require* that he provide identification...for future child
support
no doubt...
If you don't believe me... [sanctimony deleted] ... there's
plenty of info on the net. up to and including state statutes that
you can read yourself...

Thanks. I cut the sanctimony because it served no useful purpose.

The one law I read, from Indiana, said "parent", not "mother."
Maybe
that's an exception. It also made a reference to someone other than
a
parent dropping off the child, which I found more than a little
disturbing. Still, given the choice between the child being dropped
off at a firehouse and being dropped in a dumpster, I'll go for the
firehouse. How about you?

So then you would find it ok for the daddy who didn't want to be a
daddy to take the child to a firehouse and drop it off and walk
away,
no questions asked?

IF, and it's a big IF, the mother is in favor, it is likely that it
will
happen just like she dropped the baby off. Otherwise, and it has
happened, that the father can drop the baby off, mother retrieves the
baby and then the father winds up in the clutches of CSE to pay the
expenses of the baby, including arrearages.
In effect, only mothers can drop the baby without penalty. Fathers
are
always in danger of later being brought into 'family court', perhaps
even decades later.

Theres one issue about these Legal Abandon Laws you've missed.

Its that, how does a father get custody of an infant, in time to use
a Legal Abandon Law ? Since new born infants tend to be with the
mother,
because they just popped out of the mother, it logically follows that
any law that mandates use only for new born infants, een if it is
written in " gender neutral " language, can only be used by te person
who just physiclaly birthed the child: mommy.

In order for dad to use Legal Abandon Laws, first dad would have to
win legal custody, and the time needed to do that ( Assuming that he
has great legal cause to win with, a situation that misandrous family
kourts make greatly unlikely ), which would take the infant past the
new born status that such drop offs are limited to.

Andre

Absolutely true. I was intimating that even if "dad" had received
permission from "mom" to drop the baby off, she can still change her
mind, retrieve the baby and sue for child support from the 'drop-off
dad'. No matter what, it is NOT gender neutral because it only applies
to fathers if and only as long as he has the mother's permission.
Mothers do not need anyone's permission or approval.
Phil #3

Tracy wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:7%fXg.7687$P7.2176@edtnps90...

Moon Shyne wrote:


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?

How do we do it now ? What he means is that if you were in a relationship
where having children was an agreed upon objective or wherein you had
agreed to the commitment of having and supporting children, you don't get
to *LEGALLY* walk away just because you might want to. (Note, this
relationship doesn't necessarily have to be a marriage, it could be
co-habitation, if could even be separate habitation but you've told the
pregnant women that you agree to support the child...which influences her
decision to have the child...you don't get to arbitrarily walk away if
you've freely made a commitment...


But people do every day... They excuse their behavior by stating "I changed
my mind." It boils down to that the real problems are morals, not legal,
issues.

Yes Tracy, but when it's *men* who "change their minds", the law holds
them to their obligations...hell even when they haven been given a
chance to make a decision, the law STILL holds them to "their"
obligations...even when boys and men have been sexually abused, sexually
assaulted and raped...the law STILL holds them to "their" obligations...
OTOH, when it's a woman who changes her mind she can have an abortion
or, if she objects to abortion she can unilaterally put the child up for
adoption or, if that's too much trouble then in over 47 states now she
can just legally walk away by abandoning the child at a "safe
haven"...see the difference ?

....Ken

teachrmama wrote:

"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
...

"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


About what, Moon? I have never complained about my husband supporting his
daughter. You are wrong. I have complained about the system that tried to
stick him with a dozen years of arrearages plus penalties and interest for a
child he didn't know existed. I've complained that *any* arrearages were
due at all--the system is wrong on that issue. I've complained that I KNOW
the money is not used just for the child it is paid for. I've certainly
complained that the woman is not held accountable for even one penny of her
own children's support. But I've never complained about his supporting his
own daughter. Wrong again, Moon.

If Parg/Hyerdahl were here she be *convinced* that you are a man...just
because you believe in fairness and justice and equality...

....Ken