Sane Parenting Plan

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got
involved in the first place.

TM & MS... speaking from [recent] personal experience - the phrase "adults"
in connection to any sentence dealing with divorce is a joke to me [right
now]. It reminds me of the text messages from my 2bx-husband claiming I'm
NOT being an adult just because I'm NOT giving him what he wants - which BTW
was a $25,000 cashier's check PRIOR to signing divorce papers. He
threatened that if he didn't get what he wanted (that $25k cashier's check),
then he would go after alamony, plus half my total worth. Most adults know
it doesn't work that way.

Although I agree that the government should NOT be involved, and I've made
those statements so many times in the past - all I can say right now is that
I wish the government wasn't involved. Instead it should be the same church
we married in. He does not deserve anything - period.

BTW - I'm not pregnant (thank God!), but if I was - this would be a huge
mess for a very long time. It would take some other entity to step in and
assist us in finding a workable solution. I would personally refuse to give
the child his last name, let alone be nice to him like I was to my youngest
son's father. I wouldn't cut him any slack in terms of support, etc. Why
in the heck should I? Has he shown me any respect? Heck no!

Bottom-line: I could have saved myself over $5k and him propably about the
same if he wasn't so irrational.

Tracy

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point, the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself
into her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the
point was obviously about a general way of handling things and not such
a specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an idea
that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense that I
wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the children
50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to actually
READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from
all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a resolution
without some sort of plan as to how you are going to implement the
resolution.

Oh no I did not! Read it again. I said that 50/50 custody would be the
starting point!! NOT the final resolution.


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

Which is? (I'm hoping it's not your "Human beings suck. Why trust them to
do anything that the government could control for them" point)





You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got
involved in the first place.

Level the playing field and see if things don't change.




Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50, and
work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it out from
a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't worth
a snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement them.

And the foolish, wasteful, inequitable "solution" we have now is not worth a
snowball's chance, and is depriving children of their fathers' influence in
their formative years.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior might
disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled to
have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to
have time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

NOT TRUE. 50/50 is default starting position. NOT final resolution.
Criminal activity would certainly come into play in a very negative way.




You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for all
the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT this
Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.

I would let adults be adults. YOU don't trust the human race, and feel that
everyone must be treated like scum.





How about if we disqualify women the same way?
She is a crack ho who has been known to pound on her boyfriends when
she gets high? Why should she get to choose motherhood?

Well, she shouldn't - but last time I checked, government mandated
sterilization went out with the Nazis.

But gubmint-mandated maternal custody seems to be alive and well, rarely
even looking at mom's ongoing poor choices.

Well, since there doesn't seem to be too much inspection as to dad's
ongoing poor choices either, I'd have to say that one's pretty equal.

Yeah, right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got
involved in the first place.

TM & MS... speaking from [recent] personal experience - the phrase
"adults" in connection to any sentence dealing with divorce is a joke to
me [right now]. It reminds me of the text messages from my 2bx-husband
claiming I'm NOT being an adult just because I'm NOT giving him what he
wants - which BTW was a $25,000 cashier's check PRIOR to signing divorce
papers. He threatened that if he didn't get what he wanted (that $25k
cashier's check), then he would go after alamony, plus half my total
worth. Most adults know it doesn't work that way.

Although I agree that the government should NOT be involved, and I've made
those statements so many times in the past - all I can say right now is
that I wish the government wasn't involved. Instead it should be the same
church we married in. He does not deserve anything - period.

BTW - I'm not pregnant (thank God!), but if I was - this would be a huge
mess for a very long time. It would take some other entity to step in and
assist us in finding a workable solution. I would personally refuse to
give the child his last name, let alone be nice to him like I was to my
youngest son's father. I wouldn't cut him any slack in terms of support,
etc. Why in the heck should I? Has he shown me any respect? Heck no!

Bottom-line: I could have saved myself over $5k and him propably about the
same if he wasn't so irrational.

I'm so sorry for what you are going through, Tracy. I remember how happy
you were. This must be devastating for you. And, of course, there are
adults who never quite get the hang of it. But the vast majority DO. We
will always need a family court system--just not for the majority, who are
capable of working things out if given a fair chance to do so. As for
situations like yours (and others I know about) those are the situations who
benefit form the system. But everyone doesn't need to be treated so badly.
And I'm with you about trying to work things through in the same church you
were married in.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:39:13 -0400, "Dusty" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:31:50 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point, the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself into
her
life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?


Ok...I forgot to put the usual disclaimers. So just for you...

"Not every possible situation was thought up beforehand. This message
was only meant as a starting point for a discussion on an idea. This
is in no way to be considered medical or legal advice. For religious
aspects please see your local priest, rabbi, budda or all-being. This
disclaimer is only a partial disclaimer and other disclaimations my
also be applicable."

Now that we got that out of the way let me ask you this...What happens
under the current system that makes it any different? If a woman is
raped and decides to carry the baby to term, is that baby not entitled
to know both of it's parents? The whole idea I was putting forth was
that of NOT forcing anyone to become a parent. If someone was raped
and they didn't want the rapist in their life they could still
terminate the pregnancy.


Here Dave, try this one on for size. I don't believe there's much (if any)
"wiggle-room" left in it..


"Please be aware that the following is this Original Poster's (hereafter OP)
opinion and, though it may be based upon factual information and/or data, it
is only an opinion.



Therefore, OP's opinion is meant only as a starting point for discussion on
an idea and is -NOT- intended to be taken literally, unless it is otherwise
known, or shown, to be and/or contain URL or other such link or information
provided within, or in a follow-up, so as to be available for independent,
self-verification by the reader.



Such information/link may be provided by an interested/uninterested
third-party and the information/link must be factual in nature and be
available for independent, self-verification by the reader.



Unless otherwise stated, obviously intended, or outright explained, the
views expressed by OP are intended for a general audience of adult age and
of average intelligence and are -NOT- intended to be taken to the far
reaches of the extreme, nor used in word games (a.k.a., words-of-art) so as
to confuse, obfuscate or obscure from OP's original intent/post.



The opinions expressed by OP are in no way, shape or form to be considered
legal, medical, religious, nor any other form of, advice.



This disclaimer is only a partial disclaimer and there may be additional
disclamations applicable to the OP's posts, opinions, views and/or other
such self expressions, in full or in part, which will be amended to this and
any other posts OP did make, may make and/or is making now.



The views expressed are -ONLY- an opinion (unless otherwise noted)."

Yes, I think that would pretty much cover most of it

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:38:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point, the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself into
her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the point
was obviously about a general way of handling things and not such a
specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an idea
that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense that I
wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the children
50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to actually
READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from
all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a resolution
without some sort of plan as to how you are going to implement the
resolution.

Perhaps now, you start to see my point.



You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw its
overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they managed
their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got involved in
the first place.

Even if the choices the parents in a divorce are considered poor by
some, how does bringing government into it help? What would you want
them to do next? Maybe they should select your next mate for you? The
only thing government can do is punish and threaten one or both of the
people involved. Unless one of the people involved is breaking a law,
the government should stay out of family matters.



Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50, and
work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it out from
a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't worth a
snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement them.

There is a way to implement any idea. In a divorce involving children,
you start out with a level playing field where neither parent is going
to lose money or their children. Just by doing that much, you've
already eliminated a huge part of the problem since you aren't setting
up for combat between each other. Nobody has anything to gain by
making their ex look bad. All thats left is to decide how you are
going to handle raising the children. You look at your situations and
see what works best. If you can't agree then you go to a neutral third
party to help you decide. Remember, these are people that both WANTED
to be parents so they should be trying to do what's best for their
kids. You could start with a default of each parent getting the child
for 1 or 2 weeks at a time and go from there.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior might
disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled to
have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to have
time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

It may well be that one parent or the other is a scumbag. On the other
hand most normal people aren't. If either parent was some sort of
danger to the child for whatever reason, that would be grounds for
them to be declared an unfit parent and the "good" parent could take
the child off and raise them alone. The unfit parent would just be
relieved of the rights and responsibilities that come with being a
parent.




You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for all
the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT this
Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.




How about if we disqualify women the same way?
She is a crack ho who has been known to pound on her boyfriends when she
gets high? Why should she get to choose motherhood?

Well, she shouldn't - but last time I checked, government mandated
sterilization went out with the Nazis.

But gubmint-mandated maternal custody seems to be alive and well, rarely
even looking at mom's ongoing poor choices.

Well, since there doesn't seem to be too much inspection as to dad's ongoing
poor choices either, I'd have to say that one's pretty equal.

"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
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes
so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point,
the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself
into her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the
point was obviously about a general way of handling things and not such
a specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an idea
that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense that I
wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the
children 50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to actually
READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from
all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a resolution
without some sort of plan as to how you are going to implement the
resolution.

Oh no I did not! Read it again. I said that 50/50 custody would be the
starting point!! NOT the final resolution.


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

Which is? (I'm hoping it's not your "Human beings suck. Why trust them
to do anything that the government could control for them" point)

That's been YOUR spin, Teach - you have such a written in stone concept of
what I've been trying to say that I don't think you've considered that the
stone mason got it wrong :-)






You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got
involved in the first place.

Level the playing field and see if things don't change.

You really need someone to blame. Ok, blame the big bad government. Blame
away.

I'm not sure it's going to fix anything though.





Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50,
and work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it out
from a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't worth
a snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement them.

And the foolish, wasteful, inequitable "solution" we have now is not worth
a snowball's chance, and is depriving children of their fathers' influence
in their formative years.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior
might disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled to
have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to
have time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

NOT TRUE. 50/50 is default starting position. NOT final resolution.
Criminal activity would certainly come into play in a very negative way.

Ah - so having a relationship with dad ISN'T the be-all and end-all.

Ok.




You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for all
the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT this
Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.

I would let adults be adults. YOU don't trust the human race, and feel
that everyone must be treated like scum.

I DO wish you'd stop telling me what I think and feel. Mostly because
you're wrong.







How about if we disqualify women the same way?
She is a crack ho who has been known to pound on her boyfriends when
she gets high? Why should she get to choose motherhood?

Well, she shouldn't - but last time I checked, government mandated
sterilization went out with the Nazis.

But gubmint-mandated maternal custody seems to be alive and well, rarely
even looking at mom's ongoing poor choices.

Well, since there doesn't seem to be too much inspection as to dad's
ongoing poor choices either, I'd have to say that one's pretty equal.

Yeah, right. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:38:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes
so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point,
the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself
into
her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the
point
was obviously about a general way of handling things and not such a
specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an idea
that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense that I
wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the
children
50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to actually
READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from
all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a resolution
without some sort of plan as to how you are going to implement the
resolution.

Perhaps now, you start to see my point.



You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its
overly-
intrusive nose!

So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed
their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got involved
in
the first place.

Even if the choices the parents in a divorce are considered poor by
some, how does bringing government into it help?

When you have a contentious situation to begin with, it can be very helpful
to have a disinterested third party involved - which may be why the people
I've encountered who went through a divorce mediator to work out the
details, rather than 2 lawyers who only want to fatten their bank accounts,
seem to be so consistantly more satisfied with the outcome.

What would you want
them to do next? Maybe they should select your next mate for you? The
only thing government can do is punish and threaten one or both of the
people involved.

That would be incorrect, despite your belief that this is the "only thing"
government can do.

Unless one of the people involved is breaking a law,
the government should stay out of family matters.



Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50,
and
work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it out
from
a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't worth
a
snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement them.

There is a way to implement any idea. In a divorce involving children,
you start out with a level playing field where neither parent is going
to lose money or their children. Just by doing that much, you've
already eliminated a huge part of the problem since you aren't setting
up for combat between each other. Nobody has anything to gain by
making their ex look bad. All thats left is to decide how you are
going to handle raising the children. You look at your situations and
see what works best. If you can't agree then you go to a neutral third
party to help you decide. Remember, these are people that both WANTED
to be parents so they should be trying to do what's best for their
kids. You could start with a default of each parent getting the child
for 1 or 2 weeks at a time and go from there.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior
might
disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled to
have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to
have
time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

It may well be that one parent or the other is a scumbag. On the other
hand most normal people aren't. If either parent was some sort of
danger to the child for whatever reason, that would be grounds for
them to be declared an unfit parent and the "good" parent could take
the child off and raise them alone. The unfit parent would just be
relieved of the rights and responsibilities that come with being a
parent.




You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for all
the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT this
Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.




How about if we disqualify women the same way?
She is a crack ho who has been known to pound on her boyfriends when
she
gets high? Why should she get to choose motherhood?

Well, she shouldn't - but last time I checked, government mandated
sterilization went out with the Nazis.

But gubmint-mandated maternal custody seems to be alive and well, rarely
even looking at mom's ongoing poor choices.

Well, since there doesn't seem to be too much inspection as to dad's
ongoing
poor choices either, I'd have to say that one's pretty equal.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"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
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes
so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point,
the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of
the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself
into her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the
point was obviously about a general way of handling things and not
such a specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an idea
that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense that I
wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the
children 50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to
actually READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from
all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a resolution
without some sort of plan as to how you are going to implement the
resolution.

Oh no I did not! Read it again. I said that 50/50 custody would be the
starting point!! NOT the final resolution.


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

Which is? (I'm hoping it's not your "Human beings suck. Why trust them
to do anything that the government could control for them" point)

That's been YOUR spin, Teach - you have such a written in stone concept of
what I've been trying to say that I don't think you've considered that the
stone mason got it wrong :-)

*I* have opinions set in stone? I am saying that people are capable of
behaving in an adult manner and that should always be the *starting point.*
YOU are the one that is saying that Big Daddy Gubmint needs to be standing
over them all the time. And I do think that you aer purposely ingnoring the
"starting point" part that I keep mentioning, just a plan that you don't
agree with.


You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!


So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government got
involved in the first place.

Level the playing field and see if things don't change.

You really need someone to blame. Ok, blame the big bad government.
Blame away.

I'm not sure it's going to fix anything though.

Oh, so you think it is going so well now that we should stick with what we
have?


Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50,
and work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it
out from a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't
worth a snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement
them.

And the foolish, wasteful, inequitable "solution" we have now is not
worth a snowball's chance, and is depriving children of their fathers'
influence in their formative years.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior
might disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled to
have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to
have time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

NOT TRUE. 50/50 is default starting position. NOT final resolution.
Criminal activity would certainly come into play in a very negative way.

Ah - so having a relationship with dad ISN'T the be-all and end-all.

Ok.

Neither is having a relationship with MOM, Moon! If they are
abusive--really abusive, not just blamed for being so to gain an
advantage--then they lose their parental rights anyway. Why you would see a
plan that could give both parents equal time with the children as something
harmful is beyond my ability to understand.




You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for
all the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT
this Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.

I would let adults be adults. YOU don't trust the human race, and feel
that everyone must be treated like scum.

I DO wish you'd stop telling me what I think and feel. Mostly because
you're wrong.

Well, Moon, your insistence that people are incapable of thinking about what
is best for their children, and discussing it with the other person in an
adult manner does seem to say that you don't hold the human race in very
high esteem.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Even if the choices the parents in a divorce are considered poor by
some, how does bringing government into it help? What would you want
them to do next? Maybe they should select your next mate for you? The
only thing government can do is punish and threaten one or both of the
people involved. Unless one of the people involved is breaking a law,
the government should stay out of family matters.

IF the government has to be involved, mandatory prenups would be a good
start. A post-nup was one of the options I was considering filing if my 2bx
and I were to ever get back together. I had spoken to him about it. First
we would keep our finances separate and file a postnup. He hated the idea
and refused to sign anything of the sort. He suddenly didn't like the idea
of separating our finances and keeping it that way. In other words, he
realized he needed my money to support him & his children.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"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
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Here is an idea that may have been put forward before but it makes
so
much sense that I wonder why noone has tried it yet. How about
only
using parents that volunteer for the job? If a man gets a woman
pregnant then he has the chance to just walk away. At that point,
the
woman can decide to raise the child herself or use one of her many
options to not become a parent. If he decides he wants to be a
dad,
then he automatically gets half the rights and responsibilities
for
raising that child. This would truly be in the best interests of
the
child.

So a rapist who impregnates his victim then gets to insert himself
into her life and the life of the child of the rape?

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere
should benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be
unfit?

No, I point out that there is NO one option that will fit all cases.

Oh course there isn't. So why bring up such things as rape when the
point was obviously about a general way of handling things and not
such a specific thing?

Except that is not how the OP presented it. He presented it as "an
idea that may have been put forward before but it makes so much sense
that I wonder why noone has tried it yet"



Same as I tried to point out with you, on the "parents have the
children 50% of the time"

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

I know - you were so busy jerking the ol' knee, you neglected to
actually READ what I was posting, and then pausing to think about it.

In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies
from all other situations.

Yet you offered a very specific resolution. You can't have a
resolution without some sort of plan as to how you are going to
implement the resolution.

Oh no I did not! Read it again. I said that 50/50 custody would be the
starting point!! NOT the final resolution.


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

Which is? (I'm hoping it's not your "Human beings suck. Why trust them
to do anything that the government could control for them" point)

That's been YOUR spin, Teach - you have such a written in stone concept
of what I've been trying to say that I don't think you've considered that
the stone mason got it wrong :-)

*I* have opinions set in stone?

When it comes to your portrayal of what I've been typing, yes, I believe you
do.

I am saying that people are capable of
behaving in an adult manner and that should always be the *starting
point.* YOU are the one that is saying that Big Daddy Gubmint needs to be
standing over them all the time.

Funny, I've looked over all my posts, and I don't see where I've said that
at all.

And I do think that you aer purposely ingnoring the
"starting point" part that I keep mentioning, just a plan that you don't
agree with.

I've already stated that we might need to agree to disagree - what more do
you want, blood?



You will never have a 1 size fits all solution, because all cases are
different.

Exactly!!! Let the PARENTS be ADULTS, and let the government withdraw
its overly-
intrusive nose!


So the parents can manage their divorce every bit as poorly as they
managed their marriages? That's at least part of how the government
got involved in the first place.

Level the playing field and see if things don't change.

You really need someone to blame. Ok, blame the big bad government.
Blame away.

I'm not sure it's going to fix anything though.

Oh, so you think it is going so well now that we should stick with what we
have?

After checking all of my responses in this thread, I have ascertained that I
didn't say that, either.



Why not just start with that premise, and work out a way to have the
individual solution fit the individual case?

Exactly what was being done in this post and in mine. Default 50/50,
and work it out from there. Rather than default to mom, and work it
out from a position of inequity.

Problem is, you still have no way to actually implement these rather
Utopianesque 'solutions'. All the pretty ideas in the world aren't
worth a snowball's chance in hell unless you have a way to implement
them.

And the foolish, wasteful, inequitable "solution" we have now is not
worth a snowball's chance, and is depriving children of their fathers'
influence in their formative years.




Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior
might disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives.

Why? I thought the presumption was that ALL children were entitled
to have a relationship with their father!
(see how that one size fits all doesn't quite fit?)

You see how you take one word and twist the meaning from there?

I read what you, and many of the others, post. Y'all want the child to
have time with dear old dad. Period. 50% time with dad.

But gee, when dad is a scumbag, suddenly, time with dad isn't quite so
important.

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

NOT TRUE. 50/50 is default starting position. NOT final resolution.
Criminal activity would certainly come into play in a very negative way.

Ah - so having a relationship with dad ISN'T the be-all and end-all.

Ok.

Neither is having a relationship with MOM, Moon! If they are
abusive--really abusive, not just blamed for being so to gain an
advantage--then they lose their parental rights anyway. Why you would see
a plan that could give both parents equal time with the children as
something harmful is beyond my ability to understand.

And precisely where did you see me state that giving both parents equal time
is harmful? It would be really nice if you would quit fabricating things
and attributing them to me, Teach - I expected more honesty from you than
that.





You do look for the
worst in men, don't you?

No, I see that there will NEVER be a one size fits all solution for
all the individual cases.

Of course not--and yet you keep asking me how I will enforce a strict
50/50 split, when that is only the default starting position, not the
final resolution.

I'm still hoping you can come up with some way to actually IMPLEMENT
this Utopian ideal of yours. So far, you seem to be coming up empty.

I would let adults be adults. YOU don't trust the human race, and feel
that everyone must be treated like scum.

I DO wish you'd stop telling me what I think and feel. Mostly because
you're wrong.

Well, Moon, your insistence that people are incapable of thinking about
what is best for their children, and discussing it with the other person
in an adult manner does seem to say that you don't hold the human race in
very high esteem.

Well, Teach, given your rather ****-poor score when it comes to portraying
what I've actually posted, rather than your own inaccurate version, I'd have
to give you more points for the above.

I didn't realize you had such difficulty with comprehension.