child support review objection

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:aS8fj.16924$DG4.14593@trnddc04...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights; that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want to use the current system to justify men walking away from
children. When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so
that fathers and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With
you it's always "the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a
child into the world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will
*never* carry a baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it
seems that you feel that women *always* make the unilateral decision to
birth the child, so women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to
care for and support the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead,
it hinges on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the
reproductive rights made available to women and those made available to
men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states, and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies. Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be easy
to provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and
say that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset
the system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and
responsibilities. Chris has stated over and over that even within a
marriage briging a child to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men
should be able to walk away whenever they choose to. I find that
repugnant. I do believe that if 50/50 shared custody were the default
position we would see far fewer situations where children were being
raised in single-parent households. And if women were held strictly
accountable for their 50% of the financial support of their children, we
would also see far fewer single parent households. Just giving men the
right to walk away is not going to solve the problem. There are other
changes a truly masculinist movement would want to make, too.

But why would you say that men should be given equal rights to women
in one area (custody), but not in another area (post-conception
reproductive choice)? It would be a simple matter to give men
post-conception reproductive choice.

Kenneth, I have no problem with men having post-conception choices. I think
that a man should have the same amount of time as a woman to walk away from
a newborn that he feels he cannot adequately parent (from the time he finds
out that he has been named father--not from the birth of the child). I also
think that the woman should only have the same period of time to file for
paternity as a man has to contest paternity. So if a man has 6 months to
contest paternity, the woman should only have 6 months to file for
paternity--no more of this ridiculous "You have a 10 year old child and owe
me 10 years of back child support" nonsense. I have NO problem with men
having post-conception options. I DO have a problem with the idea of a man
walking away from a 10 year old child fthat he has parented for his whole
life free and clear because that he no longer wants to be a father and the
child was born "only by the unilateral choice of the mother." Do you think
that is ok? (I'll be shocked if you say yes)


The deterrent effects on women of men having that choice would -- in my
view -- do far more to cut down on the number of fatherless households
than adoption of equitable custody arrangements. These are supposed to
exist already, but years of experience indicate that, whatever the legal
custody principle, judges will always award custody to mothers if they
want it.

But I am not talking *just* about post-conception rights. I am also talking
about the right of a man to *be a father*--not just a walking wallet. My
husband's daughter is 18 now. We sent her a very nice Christmas gift this
year--but he heard nothing from her. He still mourns missing her
childhood--he is a good father, and regrets bitterly not being able to
parent her. And it would neverhave happened if the system had not been so
unbalanced in favor of "mother's rights."


If someone is arguing that, within a marriage, husbands should
automatically be able to repudiate their "child support" responsibilities,
I don't agree. (I also think it's morally repugnant for women to have
abortion rights up to and including the nauseating partial birth abortion
procedure. However, feminists--and their fellow travelers in politics and
the law--shouldn't be permitted to deny men rights that they insist are
vital for women.)

I agree. My argument here has been with Chris's stand that every birth is a
unilateral decision, and should therefore be a unilateralal responsibility.
I think that is ridiculous!

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

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights; that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from children.
When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that
fathers
and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's
always
"the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into the
world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never* carry a
baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you feel
that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth the child, so
women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and support
the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it
hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the reproductive
rights made available to women and those made available to men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states, and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies. Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be easy
to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and
say
that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset the
system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and responsibilities.
Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage briging a child
to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be able to walk
away
whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant.

Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding of the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

I do believe that if 50/50
shared custody were the default position we would see far fewer situations
where children were being raised in single-parent households. And if
women
were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial support of
their children, we would also see far fewer single parent households.
Just
giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the problem.

Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them by nature; the
choice whether or not to give birth, correct?

There
are other changes a truly masculinist movement would want to make, too.

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

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:aS8fj.16924$DG4.14593@trnddc04...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women
already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their
child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to
take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the
clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions
do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents
in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it
when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of
BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights;
that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want to use the current system to justify men walking away from
children. When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things
so
that fathers and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities?
With
you it's always "the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a
child into the world has all the responsibility, too." Since men
will
*never* carry a baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it
seems that you feel that women *always* make the unilateral decision
to
birth the child, so women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to
care for and support the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant.
Instead,
it hinges on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the
reproductive rights made available to women and those made available
to
men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so
years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states,
and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to
DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given
them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies.
Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be
easy
to provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be
far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would
not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for
women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights an
d
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and
say that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to
reset
the system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and
responsibilities. Chris has stated over and over that even within a
marriage briging a child to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so
men
should be able to walk away whenever they choose to. I find that
repugnant. I do believe that if 50/50 shared custody were the default
position we would see far fewer situations where children were being
raised in single-parent households. And if women were held strictly
accountable for their 50% of the financial support of their children,
we
would also see far fewer single parent households. Just giving men the
right to walk away is not going to solve the problem. There are other
changes a truly masculinist movement would want to make, too.

But why would you say that men should be given equal rights to
women
in one area (custody), but not in another area (post-conception
reproductive choice)? It would be a simple matter to give men
post-conception reproductive choice.

Kenneth, I have no problem with men having post-conception choices. I
think
that a man should have the same amount of time as a woman to walk away
from
a newborn that he feels he cannot adequately parent (from the time he
finds
out that he has been named father--not from the birth of the child). I
also
think that the woman should only have the same period of time to file for
paternity as a man has to contest paternity. So if a man has 6 months to
contest paternity, the woman should only have 6 months to file for
paternity--no more of this ridiculous "You have a 10 year old child and
owe
me 10 years of back child support" nonsense. I have NO problem with men
having post-conception options. I DO have a problem with the idea of a
man
walking away from a 10 year old child fthat he has parented for his whole
life free and clear because that he no longer wants to be a father and the
child was born "only by the unilateral choice of the mother."

WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the woman
who decides to abort does.

Do you think
that is ok? (I'll be shocked if you say yes)


The deterrent effects on women of men having that choice would -- in
my
view -- do far more to cut down on the number of fatherless households
than adoption of equitable custody arrangements. These are supposed to
exist already, but years of experience indicate that, whatever the legal
custody principle, judges will always award custody to mothers if they
want it.

But I am not talking *just* about post-conception rights. I am also
talking
about the right of a man to *be a father*--not just a walking wallet. My
husband's daughter is 18 now. We sent her a very nice Christmas gift this
year--but he heard nothing from her. He still mourns missing her
childhood--he is a good father, and regrets bitterly not being able to
parent her. And it would neverhave happened if the system had not been so
unbalanced in favor of "mother's rights."

Who gives a rip? Is this all about how your husband feels?




If someone is arguing that, within a marriage, husbands should
automatically be able to repudiate their "child support"
responsibilities,
I don't agree. (I also think it's morally repugnant for women to have
abortion rights up to and including the nauseating partial birth
abortion
procedure. However, feminists--and their fellow travelers in politics
and
the law--shouldn't be permitted to deny men rights that they insist are
vital for women.)

I agree. My argument here has been with Chris's stand that every birth is
a
unilateral decision, and should therefore be a unilateralal
responsibility.
I think that is ridiculous!

Ok, so it's ridiculous; but still it is the TRUTH! But wait a minute, I
think you're on to something. That's right, I forgot about that case a
number of years ago where some guy kidnapped a pregnant woman and FORCED her
to give birth. Guess ya got me there...............

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:aS8fj.16924$DG4.14593@trnddc04...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

Kenneth, I have no problem with men having post-conception choices. I
think
that a man should have the same amount of time as a woman to walk away
from
a newborn that he feels he cannot adequately parent (from the time he
finds
out that he has been named father--not from the birth of the child). I
also
think that the woman should only have the same period of time to file for
paternity as a man has to contest paternity. So if a man has 6 months to
contest paternity, the woman should only have 6 months to file for
paternity--no more of this ridiculous "You have a 10 year old child and
owe
me 10 years of back child support" nonsense. I have NO problem with men
having post-conception options. I DO have a problem with the idea of a
man
walking away from a 10 year old child fthat he has parented for his whole
life free and clear because that he no longer wants to be a father and
the
child was born "only by the unilateral choice of the mother."

WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the woman
who decides to abort does.

Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person, Chris. After
the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right to walk
away. Yopur contention is ridiculous.


Do you think
that is ok? (I'll be shocked if you say yes)


The deterrent effects on women of men having that choice would -- in
my
view -- do far more to cut down on the number of fatherless households
than adoption of equitable custody arrangements. These are supposed to
exist already, but years of experience indicate that, whatever the
legal
custody principle, judges will always award custody to mothers if they
want it.

But I am not talking *just* about post-conception rights. I am also
talking
about the right of a man to *be a father*--not just a walking wallet. My
husband's daughter is 18 now. We sent her a very nice Christmas gift
this
year--but he heard nothing from her. He still mourns missing her
childhood--he is a good father, and regrets bitterly not being able to
parent her. And it would neverhave happened if the system had not been
so
unbalanced in favor of "mother's rights."

Who gives a rip? Is this all about how your husband feels?

You're an *ss, Chris. I'm against the system that supports these things.





If someone is arguing that, within a marriage, husbands should
automatically be able to repudiate their "child support"
responsibilities,
I don't agree. (I also think it's morally repugnant for women to have
abortion rights up to and including the nauseating partial birth
abortion
procedure. However, feminists--and their fellow travelers in politics
and
the law--shouldn't be permitted to deny men rights that they insist are
vital for women.)

I agree. My argument here has been with Chris's stand that every birth
is
a
unilateral decision, and should therefore be a unilateralal
responsibility.
I think that is ridiculous!

Ok, so it's ridiculous; but still it is the TRUTH! But wait a minute, I
think you're on to something. That's right, I forgot about that case a
number of years ago where some guy kidnapped a pregnant woman and FORCED
her
to give birth. Guess ya got me there...............

OK, try this. Man and woman cannot have bio kids. So they adopt two
children. When the children are 10 and 11, dad decides that parenting
prepuscents is difficult, and wants not part of it. He packs up and moves
in with Hattie Hooters. Is it ok for him to walk away from his children,
since it was not a unileteral choice to bring the children into the
family--both mom and dad signed the adoption papers.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to
take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents
in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights; that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from children.
When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that
fathers
and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's
always
"the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into the
world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never* carry
a
baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you feel
that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth the child,
so
women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and support
the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it
hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the reproductive
rights made available to women and those made available to men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so
years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states,
and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to
DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given
them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies. Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be easy
to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be
far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would
not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and
say
that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset the
system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and responsibilities.
Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage briging a
child
to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be able to walk
away
whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant.

Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding of the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not the one who lacks understanding here, Chris.


I do believe that if 50/50
shared custody were the default position we would see far fewer
situations
where children were being raised in single-parent households. And if
women
were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial support of
their children, we would also see far fewer single parent households.
Just
giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the problem.

Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them by nature;
the
choice whether or not to give birth, correct?

Sure, Chris. And those who are unable to support their children should have
those children removed from their care, and be forced to pay child support
to the caretakers of the children, just as men are forced to pay child
support--with all the same consequences for not paying. Just watch the
birth rate drop if that ever happens!!

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

..
..
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights; that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from children.
When
have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that fathers and
mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's always
"the
one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into the world
has
all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never* carry a baby
inside
them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you feel that women
*always* make the unilateral decision to birth the child, so women
*always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and support the
child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the reproductive
rights
made available to women and those made available to men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These
rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states, and (as a
practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about adoption
of
newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to DENY men the
post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given them -- that of
walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies. Furthermore, the trend
is
to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't
have
to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be easy to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However,
there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights and prevent men
from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

The male word "masculist" is a cognate of female "feminist". Anyway, what
you stated above hits the nail right on the head!

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

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

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:aS8fj.16924$DG4.14593@trnddc04...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

Kenneth, I have no problem with men having post-conception choices. I
think
that a man should have the same amount of time as a woman to walk away
from
a newborn that he feels he cannot adequately parent (from the time he
finds
out that he has been named father--not from the birth of the child). I
also
think that the woman should only have the same period of time to file
for
paternity as a man has to contest paternity. So if a man has 6 months
to
contest paternity, the woman should only have 6 months to file for
paternity--no more of this ridiculous "You have a 10 year old child and
owe
me 10 years of back child support" nonsense. I have NO problem with
men
having post-conception options. I DO have a problem with the idea of a
man
walking away from a 10 year old child fthat he has parented for his
whole
life free and clear because that he no longer wants to be a father and
the
child was born "only by the unilateral choice of the mother."

WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the
woman
who decides to abort does.

Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person, Chris.
After
the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right to walk
away. Yopur contention is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the right to
abort.




Do you think
that is ok? (I'll be shocked if you say yes)


The deterrent effects on women of men having that choice would --
in
my
view -- do far more to cut down on the number of fatherless
households
than adoption of equitable custody arrangements. These are supposed
to
exist already, but years of experience indicate that, whatever the
legal
custody principle, judges will always award custody to mothers if
they
want it.

But I am not talking *just* about post-conception rights. I am also
talking
about the right of a man to *be a father*--not just a walking wallet.
My
husband's daughter is 18 now. We sent her a very nice Christmas gift
this
year--but he heard nothing from her. He still mourns missing her
childhood--he is a good father, and regrets bitterly not being able to
parent her. And it would neverhave happened if the system had not been
so
unbalanced in favor of "mother's rights."

Who gives a rip? Is this all about how your husband feels?

You're an *ss, Chris. I'm against the system that supports these things.

No need to get excited with the name callin'. I was just trying to
understand how your husband's feelings has any bearing on the issue.







If someone is arguing that, within a marriage, husbands should
automatically be able to repudiate their "child support"
responsibilities,
I don't agree. (I also think it's morally repugnant for women to
have
abortion rights up to and including the nauseating partial birth
abortion
procedure. However, feminists--and their fellow travelers in
politics
and
the law--shouldn't be permitted to deny men rights that they insist
are
vital for women.)

I agree. My argument here has been with Chris's stand that every birth
is
a
unilateral decision, and should therefore be a unilateralal
responsibility.
I think that is ridiculous!

Ok, so it's ridiculous; but still it is the TRUTH! But wait a minute, I
think you're on to something. That's right, I forgot about that case a
number of years ago where some guy kidnapped a pregnant woman and FORCED
her
to give birth. Guess ya got me there...............

OK, try this. Man and woman cannot have bio kids. So they adopt two
children. When the children are 10 and 11, dad decides that parenting
prepuscents is difficult, and wants not part of it. He packs up and moves
in with Hattie Hooters. Is it ok for him to walk away from his children,
since it was not a unileteral choice to bring the children into the
family--both mom and dad signed the adoption papers.

Most pre-adolescents would know the answer to THAT question. But for those
who don't, here it is: Short of having a gun pointed at one's head, it is
NOT ok to renege on a contractual obligation.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:aS8fj.16924$DG4.14593@trnddc04...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip for length

Kenneth, I have no problem with men having post-conception choices. I
think
that a man should have the same amount of time as a woman to walk away
from
a newborn that he feels he cannot adequately parent (from the time he
finds
out that he has been named father--not from the birth of the child).
I
also
think that the woman should only have the same period of time to file
for
paternity as a man has to contest paternity. So if a man has 6 months
to
contest paternity, the woman should only have 6 months to file for
paternity--no more of this ridiculous "You have a 10 year old child
and
owe
me 10 years of back child support" nonsense. I have NO problem with
men
having post-conception options. I DO have a problem with the idea of
a
man
walking away from a 10 year old child fthat he has parented for his
whole
life free and clear because that he no longer wants to be a father and
the
child was born "only by the unilateral choice of the mother."

WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the
woman
who decides to abort does.

Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person, Chris.
After
the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right to walk
away. Yopur contention is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the right to
abort.


I don't think abortion is a moral choice, but that does not make it right
for either parent to just walk out on a child that he/she has supported for
years.

Do you think
that is ok? (I'll be shocked if you say yes)


The deterrent effects on women of men having that choice would --
in
my
view -- do far more to cut down on the number of fatherless
households
than adoption of equitable custody arrangements. These are supposed
to
exist already, but years of experience indicate that, whatever the
legal
custody principle, judges will always award custody to mothers if
they
want it.

But I am not talking *just* about post-conception rights. I am also
talking
about the right of a man to *be a father*--not just a walking wallet.
My
husband's daughter is 18 now. We sent her a very nice Christmas gift
this
year--but he heard nothing from her. He still mourns missing her
childhood--he is a good father, and regrets bitterly not being able to
parent her. And it would neverhave happened if the system had not
been
so
unbalanced in favor of "mother's rights."

Who gives a rip? Is this all about how your husband feels?

You're an *ss, Chris. I'm against the system that supports these things.

No need to get excited with the name callin'. I was just trying to
understand how your husband's feelings has any bearing on the issue.

His feelings are not the issue. A system that not only creates but exults
over such a situation is the issue.

If someone is arguing that, within a marriage, husbands should
automatically be able to repudiate their "child support"
responsibilities,
I don't agree. (I also think it's morally repugnant for women to
have
abortion rights up to and including the nauseating partial birth
abortion
procedure. However, feminists--and their fellow travelers in
politics
and
the law--shouldn't be permitted to deny men rights that they insist
are
vital for women.)

I agree. My argument here has been with Chris's stand that every
birth
is
a
unilateral decision, and should therefore be a unilateralal
responsibility.
I think that is ridiculous!

Ok, so it's ridiculous; but still it is the TRUTH! But wait a minute, I
think you're on to something. That's right, I forgot about that case a
number of years ago where some guy kidnapped a pregnant woman and
FORCED
her
to give birth. Guess ya got me there...............

OK, try this. Man and woman cannot have bio kids. So they adopt two
children. When the children are 10 and 11, dad decides that parenting
prepuscents is difficult, and wants not part of it. He packs up and
moves
in with Hattie Hooters. Is it ok for him to walk away from his children,
since it was not a unileteral choice to bring the children into the
family--both mom and dad signed the adoption papers.

Most pre-adolescents would know the answer to THAT question. But for those
who don't, here it is: Short of having a gun pointed at one's head, it is
NOT ok to renege on a contractual obligation.

So if dad accepting parental obligations as an adoptive parent is an
obligation, why is dad accepting parental obligations as a bio parent not an
obligation? Especially when he signs an acknowledgement of paternity in the
hospital before the child is taken home?

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

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

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women
already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their
child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to
take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the
clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions
do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents
in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it
when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of
BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights;
that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from children.
When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that
fathers
and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's
always
"the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into the
world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never*
carry
a
baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you
feel
that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth the child,
so
women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and
support
the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it
hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the reproductive
rights made available to women and those made available to men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so
years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states,
and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions
about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to
DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given
them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies.
Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men
post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men
shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be
easy
to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be
far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would
not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights
and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and
say
that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset
the
system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and
responsibilities.
Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage briging a
child
to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be able to walk
away
whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant.

Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding of the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not the one who lacks understanding here, Chris.

That you find it "repugnant" certainly suggests you do. That aside, just
what IS your understanding of the relationship?




I do believe that if 50/50
shared custody were the default position we would see far fewer
situations
where children were being raised in single-parent households. And if
women
were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial support
of
their children, we would also see far fewer single parent households.
Just
giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the problem.

Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them by nature;
the
choice whether or not to give birth, correct?

Sure, Chris.

Ah, that mysterious double standard appears once again.

And those who are unable to support their children should have
those children removed from their care, and be forced to pay child support
to the caretakers of the children, just as men are forced to pay child
support--with all the same consequences for not paying. Just watch the
birth rate drop if that ever happens!!

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how the end justifies the means.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should have a way
of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women
already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their
child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to
take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the
clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions
do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2
parents
in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it
when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree
with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children any time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of
BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights;
that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away.
You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from
children.
When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that
fathers
and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's
always
"the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into
the
world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never*
carry
a
baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you
feel
that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth the
child,
so
women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and
support
the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men
doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it
hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the
reproductive
rights made available to women and those made available to men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so
years,
women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive
rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states,
and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions
about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to
DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given
them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies.
Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men
post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men
shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be
easy
to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be
far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would
not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights
and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system
and
say
that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset
the
system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and
responsibilities.
Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage briging a
child
to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be able to walk
away
whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant.

Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding of the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not the one who lacks understanding here, Chris.

That you find it "repugnant" certainly suggests you do. That aside, just
what IS your understanding of the relationship?




I do believe that if 50/50
shared custody were the default position we would see far fewer
situations
where children were being raised in single-parent households. And if
women
were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial support
of
their children, we would also see far fewer single parent households.
Just
giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the problem.

Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them by nature;
the
choice whether or not to give birth, correct?

Sure, Chris.

Ah, that mysterious double standard appears once again.

I don't see how it is a double standard, if men have the same post-birth
right to safe haven as women do. If, right after birth, either or both
parents can give up their parental rights and responsibilities, how is that
a double standard? (I know that is not how it is right now, but that still
does not justify your contention that *men* should be permitted to walk away
from their children any time they want to--and you feel that this would
balance the abortion thing?)


And those who are unable to support their children should have
those children removed from their care, and be forced to pay child
support
to the caretakers of the children, just as men are forced to pay child
support--with all the same consequences for not paying. Just watch the
birth rate drop if that ever happens!!

Perhaps, but I'm not sure how the end justifies the means.

I'm not sure what you mean. I am saying that, if a woman chooses not to
give up her child and a man chooses a safe-haven right to walk away, the
woman would voluntarily assume 100% of the responsibility for the child.
Should she not be able to do so, she should not be supported by the
taxpayers--but the child should be put with someone who *is* able to support
him. Maybe a relative would be willing to help out, maybe foster care would
be the only route. Who knows. But I'd wager that the woman would be far
more careful about birth control from that time forward.