If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#941
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "pandora" wrote in message ... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:6dERg.27054$Lb5.12633@edtnps89... Moon Shyne wrote: Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE pregnant, you'll never have 100% fairness. Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no individual can be held responsible for something over which they had/have no control" In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process. What this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the man to become/remain involved because she could not force him to be... And conversely NO man could ever be a father without her express permission. Works for me. Are we done with that now? So long as not being a father includes not having to pay child support for a child he rarely gets to see, and never gets to parent. Either she wants him as a partner parent or not at all. That works for me. We'll just see how many women are willing to forego the $$$ they have counted on. The biggest problem with all this is that parenting (raising) a child has ZERO to do with money. The two can exist independently. Even WORSE, is forcing one parent to hand free cash over to the other parent. What's up with that? |
#942
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:_pPRg.35744$E67.3333@clgrps13... Hyerdahl wrote: teachrmama wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message roups.com... Actually, it has already been interpreted that women have equal contractual rights. If you don't think they do, then you prove they don't. I can't believe you are so daft as to want me to prove women have equal contractual rights. If they don't, that car dealership down the street shouldn't sell to women, eh? :-) Uhm, what does equal contractual rights have to do with her having the responsibility to inform a man that he is a father? And, please, show us a cite--not just another silly opinion. That's easy. First, there is no law demanding that men devulge the identity of their sexual partners or co-parents, and there is no law like that for women either, as equality would tend to demand. But of course, there is your famous argument about being biologically "differently situated" to account for the pro-female biases we see in family court...well Parg/Hyerdahl, that cuts both ways, if being biologically "differently situated" leads to preferential treatment for women in many cases, then being biologically "differently situated" must also lead to greater responsibility for women when that "different situation" puts them into the situation of having sole knowledge that is essential to others (the possible fathers of their children) But don't you know that such biological difference can only apply to rights? Never mind the responsibility. That is just as ridiculous as some woman menstruating all over someone's nice furniture exclaiming "because I am biologically different, I have a right to do so". Indeed, she has a right to menstruate just as certain as she has a right give birth; but along with her right comes the responsibility to wear a rag. Family law is based on contract law, using tort and constitutional law as a buffer. What you mean is that so called "constitutional" law provides an "excuse" to provide preferential treatment to women where the more usual, familiar civil and criminal law would tend to hold them to responsibility for their decisions and actions... The three combined are how family law courts operate. Isn't it convenient that the family courts don't have to follow the normal tenet of US courts to "seek justice"... Thus, the social contract implied in parenting children demands that both parents, when there are two parents, being totally, 100% responsible for the children they co-create. The "social contract" has never included a general understanding that women should be allowed to force men to become parents...that's why there was never any law *requiring* that a man marry a woman who had become pregnant. This wasn't much of an issue of course until Stanton & Anthony etal managed to brow beat legislators into passing anti-abortion laws. After that it was blatantly unfair that women have the whole burden of an unwanted pregnancy so legislation was passed to force men to support the children who could no longer be terminated. Once this offensive legislation was over turned however, the equally offensive legislation forcing men to pay for women's decisions should also have been eliminated. As Karen DeCrow, president of the National Organization of Women said: "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their Choice." and "If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men. Of course, those were in the days when NOW *WAS* an organization that believed in the ideals of equality and pursued egalitarian objectives... You really expect her to understand this? Somehow, the woman has a right to the man's money. Go figure. ...Ken |
#943
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Hyerdahl wrote:
teachrmama wrote: She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system would ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than pain and punishment. Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create. Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create. Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create. Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and identical parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's sovereign rights and authority. Since women are "differently situated" it is right and appropriate that they have final and sovereign authority over the gestation process however BECAUSE they have sole authority, unless they convince the father to acknowledge and accept his role as a parent, she SHOULD HAVE 100% responsibility for the consequences arising from HER decision to gestate. Also, it has been shown time and time again that, except in the most unusual circumstances, it is absolutely in the best interests of a child to know and have a solid relationship with their father. Since women ARE "differently situated", they are the ONLY ones who have both the ability and right to know the state of their health, fertility and gestation. Consequently, in the best interests of their child to be, they have a obligation to disclose a pregnancy to the father. If she is is uncertain who the father is she has an obligation to inform ALL of her (male) sex partners who could be the father, in an attempt discern WHO the father actually is. That's what *I* believe about child support... ....Ken |
#944
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
pandora wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... teachrmama wrote: "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:MjXQg.20041$KA6.2326@clgrps12... Hyerdahl wrote: teachrmama wrote: (edit) (edit) She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system would ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than pain and punishment. Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create. Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create. Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create. I agree to all of the above. Quelle suprise ! It couldn't be any clearer. I agree, it couldn't be any clearer that this is blatantly biases against men and completely fails to meet the constitutional test of "Equal Treatment" AND completely fails to provide a man with ANY justice, natural or otherwise... I don't know what it is that some people would like to see happen. Then you haven't been listening...what most people on this NG want to see is men treated equally and to be provided with a mechanism to abrogate unwanted parental obligations which is equivalent to those provided to women...is THAT clear enough ? To NOT be responsible for child support to children they co-create? I agree 100% than a man who freely agrees to accept parental obligations *IS* so obligated until the child is an adult OR until the child, with his free permission, is given up for adoption to a suitable home...otherwise no dice...women should NOT be able to force unwanted parental obligations onto a woman any more than he can force unwanted parental obligations onto her... Is that really a reasonable expectation in our society? Yes, Marg, *I* think that it is. I think that the vast majority of people would support C4M if feminists and right wing religious fanatics would stop lying and obfuscating and confusing the issue... Just WHO would be expected to pay for their support then? How about the woman who decides, against the wishes of the father, to have the child anyway ? The rest of us? Why should we? We shouldn't have to...place the burden where it belongs...upon the one who decided to have the child. If she is unable to properly support the child, make the child a ward of the state and seek adoptive parents who *are* capable of providing proper support... Oh, now and then, we get stuck with paying for some child that neither parent can afford to support, but do we really want to encourage more of that irresponsible behavior? Absolutely not...which is why women who *chose* to gestate when they are unable to support their children should lose those children to adoptive parents who CAN support them... sniped...patting self on back But fathers, in particular, don't get a get out of being a parent card just for playing with sex. I have absolutely no sympathy for fathers who deliberately abandon children who they have agree to parent...men who are forced unwillingly to support the choices and decisions and actions of an irresponsible women are a different matter altogether... ....Ken |
#945
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
pandora wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:6dERg.27054$Lb5.12633@edtnps89... Moon Shyne wrote: Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE pregnant, you'll never have 100% fairness. Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no individual can be held responsible for something over which they had/have no control" In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process. What this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the man to become/remain involved because she could not force him to be... And conversely NO man could ever be a father without her express permission. Well Marg, since women can unilaterally chose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason...or for no reason...that is pretty much the case now so adding protection to prevent him being *FORCED* to be a father against his will can ONLY be an improvement for men... Works for me. Works for me to... Are we done with that now? With you, sure...but I have to point out that this *is* a rather large deviation from what you've written in other posts on this very same thread...today...you seem to change your attitude with the direction of the wind :-) ....Ken |
#946
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote
"Gini" wrote ................... == Well, there is that nasty little *superior* rights in family court ;-). What superior rights? == Mother preference for custody/ Lack of accountibility for child support spending. Failing to consider the custodial parent's income on CS awards as a percentage of NCP's income. Allowing mothers to abort/abandon children without financial responsibility while denying fathers the option to walk away. Failing to consider the NCP's basic needs while determining "available income" for child support awards. Attempting to maintain custodial parent's standard of living post divorce while failing to consider the NCP's decreased standard of living. Failing to take into account the NCP's financial needs when the children are in his household. Relegating fathers as visitors in the child's life rather than 50/50 custody and co-parenting. Allowing mothers a lower standard of proof for all things "in the best interest of children." Accepting a CP's abuse accusations without any evidence that abuse has occured. ........................................ None that I've heard of. == You should be embarrassed about your profound lack of awareness. |
#947
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Ken Chaddock wrote: Moon Shyne wrote: Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE pregnant, you'll never have 100% fairness. Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no individual can be held responsible for something over which they had/have no control" You must be a Clarence Thomas devotee. :-) He's stupid too. In any event individuals are responsible all the time for outcomes that are beyond their CURRENT control. Uhuh. Just like if you didn't manufacture the gun, you could not have wholesaled it to the dealer, the dealer could not have sold it to the consumer, and the burglar could not have stolen it and used it to kill someone. Therefore, Mr. Manufacturer, YOU are responsible for the murder. The kneebone is connected to the shin bone.............. But that's not so, dear. Gun manufacturers are NOT responsible for murder, while any gun manufacturer with a child having his DNA is still a father. You see proximate cause is not an issue here grasshopper. Men, of course, have control over their sperm and it is up to men when they DECIDE to give that up. Once they have passed the burden onto someone else, they don't control it but are still responsible for setting it in motion. And let's face it fellas, women have NO DUTY to abort your little parasite. Aren't you glad that your mother didn't abort you when YOU were a little parasite? Indeed, and so is my mother. But that doesn't mean she should not have a right to choose, eh? In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process. Once again, without the sperm the ova is not fertilized, and once men pass that BURDEN onto women, they don't get to avoid consequences, just because they don't control gestation. Doctors know that. Priests know that, and yes....Virginia....JUDGES know that. It's not quite the same as a Rube Goldberg cartoon here; we can follow the harm back to the man's CHOICE to inseminate. What this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the man to become/remain involved because she could not force him to be... I can understand why you'd want that; it's the only way you would ever get a woman to agree to stay with you. But, you'd have to rape and impregnate her first, Ken. ...Ken |
#948
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Ken Chaddock wrote: Hyerdahl wrote: teachrmama wrote: She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child support system would ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything other than pain and punishment. Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up to each person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they co-create. Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they co-create. Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked when for whom the bell tolls, tolls for them. And fourth, that it is not up to me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but it's a good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create. Here's what *I* believe about child support. Unless a man (like a woman) freely chooses to be a parent by acknowledging and accepting parental obligations and, thereby gaining absolutely equal and identical parental rights, he IS NOT a parent and SHOULD NOT be held responsible for any consequences arising from the exercise of the MOTHER's sovereign rights and authority. When a woman and man RISK becoming parents they don't get to wish for other things that deny parenthood. :-) Men don't get to walk away just becasue they risked and were caught. How foolish to beleive that way. Since women are "differently situated" it is right and appropriate that they have final and sovereign authority over the gestation process however BECAUSE they have sole authority, unless they convince the father to acknowledge and accept his role as a parent, she SHOULD HAVE 100% responsibility for the consequences arising from HER decision to gestate. ONce a man has passed the burden to the woman he cannot force her to either gestate or deliver; it is now her burden and her choice. Nor can a man take away her rights under the social contract. That he cannot affect her decision, does not mean he did not already choose to risk. Tough noogies. Also, it has been shown time and time again that, except in the most unusual circumstances, it is absolutely in the best interests of a child to know and have a solid relationship with their father. Not true. What has been shown is that the more people a child has to love them the better for that child. There is no study that shows the effects of two people, not the parents. And there is no study that has been able to eliminate the effects of poverty. So, now you have nothing there. You never did, really, since the govt. cannot promise a child...even one parent....let alone two. Since women ARE "differently situated", they are the ONLY ones who have both the ability and right to know the state of their health, fertility and gestation. Consequently, in the best interests of their child to be, they have a obligation to disclose a pregnancy to the father. Not so. Women retain the rights over their own concience, hearts and minds and owe nothing to a would be father. No big man in a black robe can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran. If she is is uncertain who the father is she has an obligation to inform ALL of her (male) sex partners who could be the father, in an attempt discern WHO the father actually is.That's what *I* believe about child support... Hehehehe.....hie thee to a manery. :-) ...Ken |
#949
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote ...................... No big man in a black robe can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran. == Or Florida :-). You keep ignoring Florida :-). That's so funny, the way you keep pretending there is no law requiring a woman to divulge her sexual partners. LOL :-) |
#950
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Gini wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote ..................... No big man in a black robe can force a woman to divulge any more than he could make a man divulge HIS sex partners. If you want to live in such a place, go to Iran. == Or Florida :-). You keep ignoring Florida :-). That's so funny, the way you keep pretending there is no law requiring a woman to divulge her sexual partners. LOL :-) What are you talking about? No man in a black robe in FL can force a woman to divulge her sex partners either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |