View Single Post
  #32  
Old July 1st 03, 01:00 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...

Men CANT father endless *******s OWN THEIR OWN. It REQUIRES a WOMAN to:

A) Get PREGNANT
B) CHOOSE to REMAIN PREGNANT
C) CLAIM WELFARE to support that child, because THE WOMAN cant support
it herself.

The men such women have sex with just HAVE SEX. They play NO OTHER PART
at ALL!


Oh, good. Now we are getting somewhere. MEN just have sex. Women bear all
further responsibility beyond that point. Right?


See how it has to be SPELLED out to YOU!
Now tell me once again how men father endless *******s with no
consequence.....


Men don't father the *******s? By having sex? Huh? How does it work then?
My step-nephew has fathered at least 5--maybe 6. IOW, he provided the sperm
necessary for conception......



Your solution is to DENY women the right to abort or choose to have such
children just so we dont have to legalise that choice for men.
You would rather we take away women's rights rather than give men the
same rights that women already have. What a F****ING STUPID IDEA!!!!



Actually, Max, what I favor is a system where both partners make the
decision together as to what happens to the child. The father is NOT locked
out at the point of conception. Not take away rights--take away
*unilateral* rights, and bring both partners into the equation. Equal
rights--from the beginning.


Our taxes will go up to pay more welfare, but how
does it fix the system?


ROTFLOL

Since when has welfare EVER been designed to fix the system. Clue TM it
has NEVER been designed as a fix. It's part OF the system that says
women should NOT have their basic human right to bear children curtailed
in any way at all, by laws that prevent them getting rid of unwanted
pregnancies to avoid becoming a parent, or by financial or social
inability to care for their wanted children; Society (that includes you
and me) has 'deemed' that women should have the 'freedom' to have
children whenever they like and however they like. Society (that
includes you and me) has decide that when *WOMEN* are incapable of
caring for their children then society (that's yours and my tax dollars)
will pay whatever is required to WOMEN who cannot care for their own
children.


That's right, Max!! **BING** The light goes on!! Society (that's you and
me) has given *WOMEN* unilateral rights in this area!! The unilateral
decision making part is, however, not tempered with unilateral
responsibility. Therein lies the problem. This will not be solved by
giving men unilateral rights of their own, and removing all responsibility
from them, too. That would solve NOTHING! Welfare would pay what is now
being squeezed out of unwilling fathers. Equal rights and responsibilities
should belong to both parties from conception--and if neither is ready,
willing, or able to be a parent to the child on their own dime--then NEITHER
gets the child. Rights and responsibilities should be inseparable!


Now, where are the *FATHERS* of all these children TM? They DONT COUNT.
The fathers of these millions of children are an IRRELEVANCY. Their
ONLY importance is their 'ability' to reduce that tax burden of welfare
to society that's all.


And that is the heart of the problem, Max!! Right there. They are only
seen as wallets, and have no RIGHTS! I'm not saying, and never have been
saying, that these men should be forced into the crappy definition of
"fatherhood by wallet" that you describe above. I am saying that BOTH
parents should be in on ALL decision making from conception. And if either
one wants-but-cannot-support the child, too bad. Find a way, find a
cosigner who will guarantee the child's support. But don't force parenthood
on another just to assist your finances. And don't expect my tax dollars to
endlessly support you! But don't just give men permission to walk away from
wallethood! Put them in a position where they are expected to make
decisions--not just walk away. And make the moms take RESPONSIBILITY for
their choices, too--don't just add a little extra slop to the public trough!

They're not seen as fathers by the government,
the CSA, the legal system, and MOST OF ALL they're NOT seen as fathers
by society, especially by the ones who blame them for the 'mess' as you
do above. All they did was HAVE SEX with a willing woman TM. That's
ALL!


But that's NOT all, Max! Men know damn well that pregnancy can result from
sex. That does not mean I'm saying that they should pay for that moment of
sex for the next 21 years. But, dadgummit, maybe all the woman wanted was
sex, too. Now the 2 of them should have a decision to make about the
sexual-encounter-become-a-pregnancy.



And how does it fix the high CS awards that
are paid by so many formerly married men?


Are you saying they shouldn't get CS?


Not me. I'm saying that this is another part of the system that needs
repair. The whole custody/CS thing needs to be repaired.


Or are you saying that
formerly married men can walk away from their children, too?


BS.
Strawman.
Try again.

And you didn't answer my question about what your system would do if
the man wanted the child and the woman did not. Could he force her
to continue the pregnancy?


Yes *I* DID! Here it is AGAIN!

Try actually READING IT this time!
=================
[From my previous post]
No we DONT! We dont need to take away women's rights to avoid men
having those same rights. After all we didn't have to take away men's
rights when giving women those same rights. I have to wonder why you
think this way, and wonder how you'd really feel when YOUR rights get
taken away just so men dont get the same rights.


Not take away rights, Max--take away *unilateral* rights! And LINK the
rights and responsibilities! If the woman says "I want this child" and the
man says "I give up my rights to this child." then the woman knowingly
accepts all further responsibility. BUT the thing I disgree with is men
just walking away. Maybe so many men wouldn't want to run if they knew that
they had equal rights to the child--that they weren't just going to be
mommy's little wallet.

And I agree with everything you say about men and women finding partners
they can commit to who want children as much as they do. Unfortunately,
there is no way to legislate that. It has to be done by example, and the
system we have today provides far too few examples of the kind of commitment
you are describing. At least in folks caught up endlessly in the CS system.
(And I am NOT saying that everyone in the system is a poor example, because
that is NOT true.)



The SAME RIGHTS women already have. Why is that so hard for you to
understand TM? I mean what EXACTLY is it that you find so difficult
about understanding men having the same legal, social, and moral rights
as women?


What do I want? I want to take the *unilateral* out of it. I want men and
women to each have choices--and I want those choices tied directly to the
responsibilities that those rights engender. INCLUDING supporting the
child! I don't want men like my stepnephew to father 50 kids, because there
is absolutley NO consequence for his actions! I don't want the fool women
that he has sex with to continue to bear his children at society's expense!
And what I would like to know from you, Max, is how this part of the problem
should be solved! Do you condone my stepnephew's behavior? Does he have a
right to continue to help populate the slum in which he lives because he is
not the one who gets pregnant? Does he have any responsibility for his own
sexual behavior? And how would you solve the problem of the women who
continue to bring into this world children that they know they can't
support, because they know that the money will always be there for them?
That's my big problem with "rights" unattached to "responsibilities".