TN - Child support termination bill attacked

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle being
driven by a drunk driver. Even though the passenger may
have wanted the drunk driver to drive, is the passenger
at all responsible? The current situation is like putting
the passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just
walk away.

So you are saying women should be likened to drunks and
men likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for the
choices women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that this is an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the woman is
not. Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk away."
She has the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the
passenger permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find
themselves with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove that you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he has no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility. If she does not tell him about the child and
adopts it out he has no legal responsibility. So it isn't as if
the drunk gets off and the passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the driver
didn't get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if
they did get stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the
driver would be allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be assigned
a responsibility that is onerous while the other parent still has
the ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I just
don't agree that having men actively campaign for zero
responsibility for their children is going to solve the problem.
I do believe that a better alternative is to actively campaign ofr
50/50 joint custody as the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get out of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their propaganda
to the point that legislators are afraid of being labled
anti-child. Of course no one seems to notice that this logic also
means that women want sole custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation, along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral choices,
changes would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one cutting did
NOT get to choose their piece.

As a teacher, one of the things I have been seeing more and more is
*fathers* taking part in school activities. When I first started
teaching, mothers came to conferences, mothers chaperoned field
trips, mothers came to the classroom programs, mothers picked up the
children if they became ill at school. But these days, fathers are
filling those roles more and more. Fathers and mothers are sharing
the caretaking parts of parenthood more than ever before. Just last
week I wrote a letter to a judge for a father who is seeking shared
custody of his children, and it looks as if he is going to get it.
My daughter has a good friend whose father has managed to keep 50/50
custody for the past 12 years, despite the mothers attempts to get
that changed. The tides *are* turning. Being a father is being
recognized socially now--rather than just being a breadwinner. I
think the feminists are about to shoot themselves in the foot with
their "he only wants to pay less child support" bleatings. It has
become very obvious that fathers are not only equally capable of
caring ofr their children, but equally involved with their children.

One of our opinions is wrong and I hope it is mine. I have seen a few
instances where fathers are permitted to fully be a parent but this
doesn't appear to be much changed over the past 40+ years; there have
always been exceptions to the 'mother-only' mindset. Perhaps there
are more that previously but it's nowhere near being the rule.

Not yet--but I do thik it is improving. I certainly hope it is not
just in my little corner of the country.

I hope you are correct.



Feminists, when their actions and words get in the way, tend to try
to deny history. In the 60's, I observed filmed news reports of
groups of women gathering to burn their bras. (It was amusing to
people then) Today, baby feminists deny it ever happened and have
called me a liar when I report first-hand accounting. This will be
handled no differently should it blow up in their faces.

Well, nobody even cares if silly women burn their bras now--and it
will get to the point that mother-only custody is seen as just as
ridiculous as bra burning.

Oh, it is rather funny to listen to them scramble to cover their
well-documented tracks especially on things like that or other things
like the advent of "no-fault divorce" or their less well known tactics
of crying about the ERA while secretely moving to keep it from becoming
reality because they realize the being men in today's feministic society
is not a step up insofar as rights and responsibilities are concerned.






snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was that women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and abilities
of family law. I can find many problems that are just as
important in other areas but that isn't what we were
discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of you and
your husband deciding to have a child was that you had options
beyond conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail
any of them, it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent
of his desire. That means you had other options, he was left
with your choice. The fact that his choice and your choice were
identical means nothing in regard to which of you had choice.
THAT is the problem I have been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just don't
agree that, because that choice is legally available, that makes
the choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are raising
our children. And no law is going to change that. And both of
us know it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea that
created my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents
and purposes, I lost him at two years old because she COULD and
DID make the decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I
thought was a good marriage until she discovered how much she
could force me to pay her to divorce me. Oddly, this all came
about just at the end of my term of paying "child support" to my
first wife. I'm not saying YOU are dishonest but millions of
women ARE and in my case, it cost me a quarter of a million
dollars and ended my relationship with my child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People should be
made to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you had
agreed to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right
for you to be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There
is no way it was right for her to get all the family pictures,
hugs and kisses, Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands,
and nenories. Women should have to keep their commitments the same
as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of Pogo, "We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true that in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the dealings of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in the
situation, primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows
the truth. When the matra is "in the best interests of the
children", most seem to actually believe it is without
bothering to check. When someone points out the facts, they are
accused of sour grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we choose not
to be part of. Just because they are available does not
mean that we should be held responsible for what "might be
done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for the
choices they make and to the degree they are allowed to
make them. Since men have no legal options beyond
conception and women do, the sole responsiblity for the
women's decision should be women's. The alternative is
giving men the same or similar options, which even out the
responsibility or remove the special options of women
putting them on the same plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He had ONLY
the rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to our
children. That is far more important than the idiot laws
that produce possibilities that we would never consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has any
bearing on all those who were legally bound to accept the
choice they were not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you would
never steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do anyway would
not change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not think that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free is the
way to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable is
the way to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral choices, one
of which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man who
lacks any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50 custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making inroads.
I think that the studies showing the importance of fathers in
their children's lives are making inroads. There is more public
awareness than there was, and we need to keep that going. And
it would be nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on
the fringes of both sides of the issue so we could really make
some progress!! I think that the rising importance of fathers
will take care of the majority of the imbalance--including the
"right to walk away" scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal responsibility
and equal options but neither should be able to just do away with
the pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility just
brings to light the disparity that currently exists between men
and women. Since women currently have 100% of all options with
the ability to choose their degree of responsibility, men should,
by rights, held to a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't
make them incapable of wanting to have and raise children, it
would only limit their responsiblilty to equal their legal
abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public "deadbeat dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50 custody
shows that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who
wants to parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as dead-beats who
were simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying to
be an equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are fighting
the immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved by
playing the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for the
control they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have occurred had
the mother been honest in the first place. She had all the options,
one of which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a
time of her choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a difference by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and thought
on the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that will
bring about the necessary change--men and women who are tired of
fathers being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices. It is not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the problem very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should have an
equal opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total irresponsibility
for one's actions.

But I think if BOTH have equal safe haven rights, we will see far
fewer pregnancies.

I heartily disagree. This would create more pregnancies and more
abortions because the women who abort now would continue to abort and
those who are currently trying to use a baby as a tool to get or keep
a man (or a paycheck) will see that vision evaporate, leading to more
abandoned and aborted babies.

I think that there will be far fewer "oopsy" pregnancies. I don't
think women are going to want to take the chance of having a child
they have to raise on their own if dad opts out. I also think that
the group of women who use abortion as birth control will not change
significantly. I think there is a far larger group of people who
think that women should have a choice than who would actually make the
choice to abort for themselves.

I guess we'll likely never know exactly how this would play out. On one
hand there is the assumption that these women "accidentally" became
pregnant, meaning that they didn't do anything to prevent it while on
the other hand one may suspect sabotage in contraception or
intentionally becoming pregnant solely to snare a man. Then again there
are those who did what they thought was sufficient to prevent it only to
become pregnant anyway.
I too have read many women stating that they believe that women should
have the choice of abortion but would never have one themselves. I say
they are liars trying to hide behind the facade of a non-existent
personal morality. In my mind it is the same as saying "I'd never steal
but it should be legal for others to do so."


To some, it is immoral to abort but not to abandon an infant. I can't
explain that but people seem to really be pscyhpathic in numbers that
are scary.

Abandonment only came into law because there were babies being
abandoned to die, and the powers that be wanted to make sure those
babies were abandoned in a safe place. I, myself, do not think it was
a wise move to say that babies could be abandoned with no consequence.
And I don't think legal abandonment is actually used very often.

One of the silliest arguments in favor of legalized abandonment was that
it can't be stopped by passing laws against it so we might as well
accept that some women will abandon their babies and permit it.
According to Sandy Pruitt, of the University of Texas Houston Health
Services Center School for Public Health, you are correct. The numbers
of babies abandoned in these so-called "safe havens" in the state of
Texas where the whole idea started hasn't done as much to prevent
illegal abandonment as proclaimed. From 1996 to 2006 there were 93 known
abandonments: 82 illegally abandoned, 11 legally abandoned.



The ONLY thing that will help this situation (in my opinion) is that
they be held responsible for the results of their actions.

THAT would be ideal!! It will be interesting to see if our society
ever moves that direction again.

We seem to be steadily moving in the opposite direction with frivilous
civil lawsuits and the number of people falsely claiming that they were
physically or sexually mistreated in their childhood. The mentality of
victimhood has taken over. It is SO much easier to be a victim than to
be held accountable for one's actions and often it is profitable as
well.



If you knew that someone else would be paying for the gas no matter
how expensive it got, you might not be as careful in chosing a car
that got good gas mileage. One of those big, flashy SUVs would be a
consideration. But, since you know you will be paying for 100% of
your own gasoline, a car with excellent gas mileage is a much better
choice. Or maybe even a bicycle.

This is applicable only if the government stops financing single
motherhood. As it is, the government will pay at least SOME of the
child's expenses if the mother keeps it and refuses to name the
father. If the father doesn't know of the birth (and sometimes even
when he does) she can just walk away if done early enough and pay
nothing.


Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent should
make damn sure they don't become one and failing that should either
be a parent in every sense of the word or pay someone else to take
care of the problem they created. Allowing either or both parents
the ability to just walk away forces YOU and ME to pay for their
"accidents" while they continue making other problems that we will
be responsible to handle for them.

IF men have the same safe haven rights as women, and the women
**know** they will not be able to pick the man's pocket for 18+
years, we might see a great decrease in the "accidental" pregnancy
rate.

Perhaps but I fear some women are using the pregnancy/child as a tool
to get or keep a man independent of receiving goods and benefits the
child qualifies them to obtain.

There will always be those who are foolish enough to engage in that
sort of blackmail.

I can't argue with that.
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle
being
driven
by a drunk driver. Even though the passenger may
have
wanted
the drunk driver to drive, is the passenger at
all
responsible? The current situation is like
putting
the
passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just
walk
away.

So you are saying women should be likened to
drunks
and
men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for
the
choices
women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that
this
is
an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the
woman
is
not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk
away."
She
has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the
passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find
themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove
that
you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they
choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he
has
no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it
out
he
has
no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets
off
and
the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the
driver
didn't
get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if
they
did
get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver
would
be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be
assigned
a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent
still
has
the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I
just
don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero
responsibility
for
their children is going to solve the problem. I do
believe
that
a
better alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint
custody
as
the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get
out
of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their
propaganda
to
the
point that legislators are afraid of being labled
anti-child.
Of
course
no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women
want
sole
custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and
child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral
choices,
changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one
cutting
did
NOT
get to choose their piece.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was
that
women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I
was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and
abilities
of
family law. I can find many problems that are just as
important
in
other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of
you
and
your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had
options
beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail
any
of
them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of
his
desire.
That means you had other options, he was left with your
choice.
The
fact that his choice and your choice were identical
means
nothing
in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the
problem
I
have
been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just
don't
agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that
makes
the
choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are
raising
our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both
of
us
know
it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea
that
created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents
and
purposes,
I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID
make
the
decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought
was a
good
marriage until she discovered how much she could force me
to
pay
her
to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the end
of
my
term
of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not
saying
YOU
are
dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case, it
cost
me
a
quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship
with
my
child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People
should
be
made
to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you
had
agreed
to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right
for
you
to
be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is
no
way
it
was
right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and
kisses,
Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and
nenories.
Women
should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of
Pogo,
"We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true
that
in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the
dealings
of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in
the
situation,
primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows
the
truth.
When the matra is "in the best interests of the
children",
most
seem to actually believe it is without bothering to
check.
When
someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour
grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we
choose
not
to
be part of. Just because they are available does
not
mean
that
we should be held responsible for what "might be
done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for
the
choices
they make and to the degree they are allowed to
make
them.
Since men have no legal options beyond conception
and
women
do,
the sole responsiblity for the women's decision
should
be
women's. The alternative is giving men the same or
similar
options, which even out the responsibility or
remove
the
special options of women putting them on the same
plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He
had
ONLY
the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to
our
children. That is far more important than the
idiot
laws
that
produce possibilities that we would never
consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has
any
bearing
on
all those who were legally bound to accept the
choice
they
were
not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you
would
never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do
anyway
would
not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not
think
that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free
is
the
way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable
is
the
way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral
choices,
one
of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man
who
lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50
custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making
inroads.
I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers
in
their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more
public
awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it
would
be
nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility
could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the
fringes
of
both
sides of the issue so we could really make some
progress!!
I
think
that the rising importance of fathers will take care of
the
majority
of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away"
scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at
all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I
think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in
sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as
biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal
responsibility
and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away
with
the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on
it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility
just
brings
to light the disparity that currently exists between men
and
women.
Since women currently have 100% of all options with the
ability
to
choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by
rights,
held
to
a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them
incapable
of
wanting to have and raise children, it would only limit
their
responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public
"deadbeat
dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50
custody
shows
that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who
wants
to
parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make
legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other
harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as
dead-beats
who
were
simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying
to
be
an
equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are
fighting
the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved
by
playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for
the
control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the
fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and
your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have
occurred
had
the
mother been honest in the first place. She had all the
options,
one
of
which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a
time
of
her
choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a
difference
by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and
thought
on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that
will
bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired
of
fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate
making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices.
It
is
not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the
problem
very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people
think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should
have
an
equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total
irresponsibility
for
one's actions.

What action might that be?

In this case, being allowed to walk away from the child.

What makes it irresponsible?


Both had a part in its creation therefore both should be equally
responsible for its life and upkeep.

Goodyear tire had a part in the creation of an automobile;
therefore,
Goodyear should be responsible for its upkeep.

Not even close. Goodyear made a TIRE that never became an automobile.
The tire is more closely kin to clothing on a child than a child
itself.

Show me ONE sperm that became a child and I will personally hand you a
a
million bucks!


I don't remember saying that a sperm ever became a child. (I'm positive
I didn't because it is impossible)
What I did say was that the action of sexual intercourse involving a
male and a female can produce a pregnancy. That is the issue, NOT who is
responsible for the decision to allow a pregnancy to continue.



We both know it isn't the way
things are

Nor should it be.

but I still think both should be held to the same standard,
same options and should have the same legal voice in their
children's
lives and outcomes PLUS an equal responsibility for them.

........ just not an equal voice in whether or not they shall
become a
parent.

Until conception the DO have the same voice. The problems don't start
until conception occurs.
Please tell me which options a woman has before conception that a man
doesn't.

The choice to not do something implies the choice TO do it. One does
not
exist without the other. That's why it's called a "choice". The option
to
become a parent PRE-conception legally belongs solely to the woman.

So you're saying that men dont have the legal ability to deny being
involved in sexual intercourse? Perhaps they cannot legally use condoms?
You are getting post-conception abilities confused with pre-intercourse
options.
I had a vasectomy over 15 years ago at my request. I have engaged in
sexual intercourse hundreds of times since then without even one
becoming a pregnancy. It was my CHOICE to remove the risk of pregnancy.
Condoms are another as well as the option of refusing to engage in sex,
which is certainly inconvenient but it is an option. Men have a couple
of legal options prior to conception, in fact that's the ONLY time they
have them.






Don't overthink this. This cannot be true as long as women and
only
women have the options to escape motherhood. I DID say I disagreed
with
"safe havens" or other abandonment programs for women; I also
disagree
with abortion as birth control, both of which logically should
make
men's responsibility null and void.

Children can be legally adopted at ANY age. Thus, if one parent
wants
to
adopt away their parental responsibilities and the other objects,
then
by
inference the opposing parent has become the adopted parent. All
parents
should have that right. Not just some....... ALL!

But this is post-conception. I have never argued that once conception
occurs that women don't have several options that are withheld from
men,
in fact, that's where this thread originated. Since the laws grants
women only the abililty to decide the outcome, women should be making
a
decision for themselves only in regard to reproduction.





Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent
should
make
damn sure they don't become one

Legal impossibility for a man, post-conception.

The time to insure one doesn't become a parent is before
conception.

This restriction is placed upon ONLY men which is precisely the
problem.

I don't disagree at all.

Yet you JUST advocated it!

The restriction should be placed on BOTH parents, period, full stop.
Both parents should be equally liable for the support of any children
they created which means to start with that either abortion on demand
is
repealed or the right to opt out is extended in a legal manner to
men.

1' "They" don't create children.

No, they create a pregnancy. What happens after that is rather
unilateral.

2. The "right to opt out" is CONTRARY to your prescription of
liability for
support.

Yep. Neither should have it or both should. I prefer that all parents be
equally responsible for their children but I'll settle for both being
equal regardless the outcome.


Just as women can decide not to become a parent, men should have that
same ability or if men are assumed to be a parent at the moment of
conception and alterations are not allowed, women who find themselves
pregnant should be similarly locked into being responible for their
actions just as men are. I've explained this pretty well, I think
(see
immediately below).

And when the man chooses birth while the woman chooses abortion?


I am anti-abortion on demand. Neither should be allowed to kill their
offspring from conception onward but if the law is going to allow women
to kill them, men should have the same rights to deny them without any
legal obligation. Under Roe V. Wade, men don't have a voice in stopping
an abortion, even if the child is his. I don't agree with it but I can't
change it. I don't see any way to make sense of it no matter which one
decides to be irresponsible.




That needs to be changed by making both parents
equally responsible for, and having equal rights in regard to a
pregnancy or child.


At
that time, both are equal in reproductive options.

Irrelevant as I was referring to the POST-conception time.

I'm talking about pre-conception

Again, irrelevant. Pre-conception is not the problem. That's why
pre-conception is NOT the topic.

Then you don't want to change the law, you just want to switch the
beneficiaries?

Your question is unclear to me.

It sounds like you want men to have a free pass on all matters involving
reproduction and handing women sole responsibility; pretty much opposite
the way things are now.
I can agree that as long as women have the right to bring to term or
abort because it is "inconvenient" that men should not be held
responsible either way but I think it would be best if both were held to
an equal standard without the ability to just opt out of all
responsibility.
For one thing, your desire for men to be able to walk away from all
children they are biologically fathers of would result in total
feministic socialism. Keep in mind that socialists like Hillary, Reid
and Kennedy are numerous in Washington. You may get your wish but the
taxes you pay would pale in comparison since the government would then
feel the need to rescue all these "poor women" with even more of YOUR
tax dollars.






as well as what I would prefer, which
is equality of men and women in reproductive rights. Perhaps that
is
the
difference. Men are as aware of the causes of pregnancy as women
and
BOTH should be held to the same standards. They are not, which is
the
problem.

Only POST-conception. (see above)

I agree with you that the disparity is wrong and needs to be changed
but
it needs to be changed into "all adults should be held to the (same)
responsibility of their actions." Switching the sexism to benefit men
only doesn't make it any better, it only changes the sexism.
If women having options and men having responsibility is wrong,
reversing the roles is just as wrong.

Has someone suggested that?

It is your stance. Both TM and I see that so if we're incorrect, please
advise what specific rights and specific responsibilities both fathers
and mothers should have in your opinion.




That men should not be responsible does not keep me from
wanting men to be both as responsible and have options equal to
that
of
women, whatever they are.

Make up your mind. But remember, what someone does to their own
body
is
their OWN business.

My mind is very much made up. I think both parents should be equal in
rights and responsibilities and neither should be allowed to abandon
OR
kill their offspring at any point in the creation of the child from
conception onward.

Then don't say "men should not be responsible"; it confuses the issue.

If they have no rights, they should not be responsible. If they are
responsible, they logically should have rights. It is not at all
confusing. It is an "either/or" situation.
I think ALL parents should be held equally responsible to raise their
own children in the manner they see fit (within reason) and failing to
do so should require them to pay others to do what they refuse to do
(not are prevented from doing).
Phil #3


I don't have a problem with allowing people to do what they want as
long
as it doesn't interfere with another but in matters of reproduction
there are at least three people involved, not one. Contraception is a
responsible act but abortion or abandonment is not.
Phil #3

I just e-Mailed Mr Rob Briley
(http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/h...mbers/h52.htm).

"As I understand, you think it is right for people to have to pay child
support for children that are not theirs. Here's your chance to prove you
are not a hypocrite. I'll send you my ex-wife's address and you can start
sending her child support. When can I tell her to expect the payments from
you?"

Boy, my Ex is going to be so happy to get all this money from Mr Briley.
I'm sure he's too much of an upstanding guy to think someone else should
have to pay for children that are not theirs unless he's willing to do it
himself.

Roger N


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/ap...mination-bill/

Campfield's child support termination bill attacked
Briley says measure would punish youth for conduct of parents
By Tom Humphrey

Monday, April 21, 2008
snip

chuckle I would love to see his reply!!

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

I just e-Mailed Mr Rob Briley
(http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/h...mbers/h52.htm).

"As I understand, you think it is right for people to have to pay child
support for children that are not theirs. Here's your chance to prove you
are not a hypocrite. I'll send you my ex-wife's address and you can start
sending her child support. When can I tell her to expect the payments
from you?"

Boy, my Ex is going to be so happy to get all this money from Mr Briley.
I'm sure he's too much of an upstanding guy to think someone else should
have to pay for children that are not theirs unless he's willing to do it
himself.

Roger N


"Dusty" wrote in message ...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/ap...mination-bill/

Campfield's child support termination bill attacked
Briley says measure would punish youth for conduct of parents
By Tom Humphrey

Monday, April 21, 2008
snip

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

..
..
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip for length

It is like the case of a cop stopping a vehicle
being
driven
by a drunk driver. Even though the passenger may
have
wanted
the drunk driver to drive, is the passenger at
all
responsible? The current situation is like
putting
the
passenger in jail and allowing the driver to just
walk
away.

So you are saying women should be likened to
drunks
and
men
likened to passengers?

You're don't understand analogies, do you?
I'm saying that men are given responsibilies for
the
choices
women make.

I do understand analogies. I just don't think that
this
is
an
accurate one. The driver is breaking the law--the
woman
is
not.
Not only that, but the woman does not "just walk
away."
She
has
the child to care for. And I do believe that, if the
passenger
permitted the driver to drive drunk they might find
themselves
with some legal issues of their own.

You say you understand analogies then proceed to prove
that
you
don't.
Women can and do walk away from their children if they
choose,

But, Phil, if the woman walks away, the man has no legal
responsibility for the child either. If she aborts, he
has
no
responsibility. If she legally abandons, he has no
responsibility.
If she does not tell him about the child and adopts it
out
he
has
no
legal responsibility. So it isn't as if the drunk gets
off
and
the
passenger pays.

In the same analogy, that would be more akin to if the
driver
didn't
get stopped the passenger wouldn't get arrested but if
they
did
get
stopped, the passenger could be arrested while the driver
would
be
allowed to determine their own guilt.
The whole point is that men have zero control and can be
assigned
a
responsibility that is onerous while the other parent
still
has
the
ability to change their responsibility.

I know, Phil. I have never disagreed with you on that. I
just
don't
agree that having men actively campaign for zero
responsibility
for
their children is going to solve the problem. I do
believe
that
a
better alternative is to actively campaign ofr 50/50 joint
custody
as
the default, with no money changing hands.


When men ask for 50/50 custody, feminists claim it is to get
out
of
paying child support and use all avenues to spew their
propaganda
to
the
point that legislators are afraid of being labled
anti-child.
Of
course
no one seems to notice that this logic also means that women
want
sole
custody just for the extra C$ money.
The point is that if women are to have 100% control over the
situation,
along with that comes 100% of the responsibility.
This includes abortion on demand as well as custody and
child
support.
IF women were solely responsible for their unilateral
choices,
changes
would be forthcoming.
My mom's recipe for establishing fairness was like this:
Either me or my brother could cut the cake but the one
cutting
did
NOT
get to choose their piece.


snip for length


I didn't mean that the biggest problem in the US was
that
women
have choices in regard to reproduction and men don't. I
was
speaking about the sexism of reproductive choices and
abilities
of
family law. I can find many problems that are just as
important
in
other areas but that isn't what we were discussing.
Now, the original thought in regard to the options of
you
and
your
husband deciding to have a child was that you had
options
beyond
conception, he did not. Even if you chose to NOT avail
any
of
them,
it was YOUR choice, which was legally independent of
his
desire.
That means you had other options, he was left with your
choice.
The
fact that his choice and your choice were identical
means
nothing
in regard to which of you had choice. THAT is the
problem
I
have
been discussing.

And I do not necessarily disagree about the law. I just
don't
agree
that, because that choice is legally available, that
makes
the
choice totally mine. WE decided together. WE are
raising
our
children. And no law is going to change that. And both
of
us
know
it.

Perhaps you don't understand, this is exactly the idea
that
created
my last child; WE made the decision but for all intents
and
purposes,
I lost him at two years old because she COULD and DID
make
the
decision to change "OUR" agreement. We had what I thought
was a
good
marriage until she discovered how much she could force me
to
pay
her
to divorce me. Oddly, this all came about just at the end
of
my
term
of paying "child support" to my first wife. I'm not
saying
YOU
are
dishonest but millions of women ARE and in my case, it
cost
me
a
quarter of a million dollars and ended my relationship
with
my
child.

And **that** is a major part of what is wrong!! People
should
be
made
to stick by their agreements!! Obviously, the two of you
had
agreed
to have and raise this child--there is no way it was right
for
you
to
be forced into the role of visitor-and-wallet. There is
no
way
it
was
right for her to get all the family pictures, hugs and
kisses,
Christmas gifts made by a small child's hands, and
nenories.
Women
should have to keep their commitments the same as men do!

I agree. We can thank modern-day feminism for it all.




In regard to this and other problems, in the words of
Pogo,
"We
have met the enemy and it is us" was never more true
that
in
"family law". Few people are even half-aware of the
dealings
of
legislators and judges until they find themselves in
the
situation,
primarily because of the propaganda that overshadows
the
truth.
When the matra is "in the best interests of the
children",
most
seem to actually believe it is without bothering to
check.
When
someone points out the facts, they are accused of sour
grapes.

Isn't that the truth!!




snip for length

There are many, many disgraceful things that we
choose
not
to
be part of. Just because they are available does
not
mean
that
we should be held responsible for what "might be
done."

No, not at all. One should be held responsible for
the
choices
they make and to the degree they are allowed to
make
them.
Since men have no legal options beyond conception
and
women
do,
the sole responsiblity for the women's decision
should
be
women's. The alternative is giving men the same or
similar
options, which even out the responsibility or
remove
the
special options of women putting them on the same
plane.


YOU had unilateral choices in reproduction. He
had
ONLY
the
rights you allowed him to have.

WE had and have a commitment to each other and to
our
children. That is far more important than the
idiot
laws
that
produce possibilities that we would never
consider.

Do you really think YOUR level of commitment has
any
bearing
on
all those who were legally bound to accept the
choice
they
were
not allowed to make?
It sounds almost like you're saying that since you
would
never
steal, we don't need laws making it illegal.
A law that forces you to do what you would do
anyway
would
not
change anything.

I think the laws need to be changed--but I do not
think
that
saying that men should be able to walk away scot free
is
the
way
to go. I think that holding *women* more accountable
is
the
way
to go.

That is exactly the point. Women have unilateral
choices,
one
of
which is adding responsibilty for their choice to a man
who
lacks
any choice of his own.
How can that be changed?

I think that the men who continue the fight for 50/50
custody,
insisting on being fathers to their children are making
inroads.
I
think that the studies showing the importance of fathers
in
their
children's lives are making inroads. There is more
public
awareness
than there was, and we need to keep that going. And it
would
be
nice if those who were for equal parenting and equal
responsibility
could get organized, and keep out the nutjobs on the
fringes
of
both
sides of the issue so we could really make some
progress!!
I
think
that the rising importance of fathers will take care of
the
majority
of the imbalance--including the "right to walk away"
scotfree.

I don't actually favor the idea of either parent being at
all
irresponsible to any degree. Once a pregnancy occurs, I
think a
pregnancy is a direct result of one's choice to engage in
sexual
intercourse and should apply equally, as far as
biologically
possible, to each parent. Both should have equal
responsibility
and
equal options but neither should be able to just do away
with
the
pregnancy or child by abortion or turning their backs on
it.

Oh, good. I was getting worried about you! smile

The justification for making women wholly responsibility
just
brings
to light the disparity that currently exists between men
and
women.
Since women currently have 100% of all options with the
ability
to
choose their degree of responsibility, men should, by
rights,
held
to
a zero degree of responsibility. That wouldn't make them
incapable
of
wanting to have and raise children, it would only limit
their
responsiblilty to equal their legal abilities.

But fighting for that will only enhance the public
"deadbeat
dad"
image that needs to be done away with. Demanding 50/50
custody
shows
that the man is not a deadbeat, but a loving father who
wants
to
parent his children.

Incorrect. When fathers tried a few years back to make
legislative
changes to make them equal as parents, N.O.W. and other
harridans
mounted a nation-wide effort to portray these men as
dead-beats
who
were
simply trying to drop the amount of their C$, not of trying
to
be
an
equal parent to their children.
I don't disagree with your thinking but as long as we are
fighting
the
immense and powerful feminist lobby, nothing can be achieved
by
playing
the game by their rules.
What is left is to threaten them with the responsibility for
the
control
they demand. In other words, give them enough rope to hang
themselves.
This is even more true in situations like yours where the
fraud
committed against your husband, and by extention to you and
your
children, resulted in an arrearage that would not have
occurred
had
the
mother been honest in the first place. She had all the
options,
one
of
which was to hand fiscal responsiblity to your husband at a
time
of
her
choosing.



So how do you propose to make the law right?

You know, Phil, individually each of us can make a
difference
by
sharing our experiences, and encouraging education and
thought
on
the subject--but it will be a grassroots movement that
will
bring
about the necessary change--men and women who are tired
of
fathers
being shortchanged in favor of mothers.

And one way of bringing the facts to light is to advocate
making
women totally responsible for their unilateral choices.
It
is
not
actually the optimal solution but it points out the
problem
very
well. If all it does is gain attention and/or make people
think
independently, it will have achieved something.

I don't disagree about unplanned pregnancies--men should
have
an
equal
opportunity for "safe haven" abandonment as women do.

I totally disagree because this is allowing total
irresponsibility
for
one's actions.

What action might that be?

In this case, being allowed to walk away from the child.

What makes it irresponsible?


Both had a part in its creation therefore both should be equally
responsible for its life and upkeep.

Goodyear tire had a part in the creation of an automobile;
therefore,
Goodyear should be responsible for its upkeep.

Not even close. Goodyear made a TIRE that never became an automobile.
The tire is more closely kin to clothing on a child than a child
itself.

Show me ONE sperm that became a child and I will personally hand you a
a
million bucks!


I don't remember saying that a sperm ever became a child. (I'm positive
I didn't because it is impossible)

Then a man cannot be responsible for the creation of a child, just like
Goodyear is not responsible for the creation of a Buick. To say that the
tire is like clothing on the child is equivalent to saying the sperm is like
a car cover. Do you REALLY believe that?


What I did say was that the action of sexual intercourse involving a
male and a female can produce a pregnancy. That is the issue, NOT who is
responsible for the decision to allow a pregnancy to continue.

Nice twist! You said that a man should be responsible for his children
solely because of biology. This in spite of the fact that he had NO choice
in the matter.




We both know it isn't the way
things are

Nor should it be.

but I still think both should be held to the same standard,
same options and should have the same legal voice in their
children's
lives and outcomes PLUS an equal responsibility for them.

........ just not an equal voice in whether or not they shall
become a
parent.

Until conception the DO have the same voice. The problems don't start
until conception occurs.
Please tell me which options a woman has before conception that a man
doesn't.

The choice to not do something implies the choice TO do it. One does
not
exist without the other. That's why it's called a "choice". The option
to
become a parent PRE-conception legally belongs solely to the woman.

So you're saying that men dont have the legal ability to deny being
involved in sexual intercourse?

No. I'm saying that they lack the same legal choice that women have.

Perhaps they cannot legally use condoms?
You are getting post-conception abilities confused with pre-intercourse
options.

How so?

I had a vasectomy over 15 years ago at my request. I have engaged in
sexual intercourse hundreds of times since then without even one
becoming a pregnancy. It was my CHOICE to remove the risk of pregnancy.
Condoms are another as well as the option of refusing to engage in sex,
which is certainly inconvenient but it is an option. Men have a couple
of legal options prior to conception, in fact that's the ONLY time they
have them.

The ONLY "right" they have is to not engage in
sexual union. Not the same as a choice; and that would hardly qualify as a
right. More of a restriction I might say. Bottom line: they have NO legal
option.








Don't overthink this. This cannot be true as long as women and
only
women have the options to escape motherhood. I DID say I disagreed
with
"safe havens" or other abandonment programs for women; I also
disagree
with abortion as birth control, both of which logically should
make
men's responsibility null and void.

Children can be legally adopted at ANY age. Thus, if one parent
wants
to
adopt away their parental responsibilities and the other objects,
then
by
inference the opposing parent has become the adopted parent. All
parents
should have that right. Not just some....... ALL!

But this is post-conception. I have never argued that once conception
occurs that women don't have several options that are withheld from
men,
in fact, that's where this thread originated. Since the laws grants
women only the abililty to decide the outcome, women should be making
a
decision for themselves only in regard to reproduction.





Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent
should
make
damn sure they don't become one

Legal impossibility for a man, post-conception.

The time to insure one doesn't become a parent is before
conception.

This restriction is placed upon ONLY men which is precisely the
problem.

I don't disagree at all.

Yet you JUST advocated it!

The restriction should be placed on BOTH parents, period, full stop.
Both parents should be equally liable for the support of any children
they created which means to start with that either abortion on demand
is
repealed or the right to opt out is extended in a legal manner to
men.

1' "They" don't create children.

No, they create a pregnancy. What happens after that is rather
unilateral.

Precisely!


2. The "right to opt out" is CONTRARY to your prescription of
liability for
support.

Yep. Neither should have it or both should. I prefer that all parents be
equally responsible for their children but I'll settle for both being
equal regardless the outcome.


Just as women can decide not to become a parent, men should have that
same ability or if men are assumed to be a parent at the moment of
conception and alterations are not allowed, women who find themselves
pregnant should be similarly locked into being responible for their
actions just as men are. I've explained this pretty well, I think
(see
immediately below).

And when the man chooses birth while the woman chooses abortion?


I am anti-abortion on demand. Neither should be allowed to kill their
offspring from conception onward but if the law is going to allow women
to kill them, men should have the same rights to

.... kill them.

deny them without any
legal obligation. Under Roe V. Wade, men don't have a voice in stopping
an abortion, even if the child is his. I don't agree with it but I can't
change it.

Since you will settle for both being equal regardless of the outcome, then
explain such equality in the case of post-conception pregnancy.

I don't see any way to make sense of it no matter which one
decides to be irresponsible.

How about rights AND responsibilities?





That needs to be changed by making both parents
equally responsible for, and having equal rights in regard to a
pregnancy or child.


At
that time, both are equal in reproductive options.

Irrelevant as I was referring to the POST-conception time.

I'm talking about pre-conception

Again, irrelevant. Pre-conception is not the problem. That's why
pre-conception is NOT the topic.

Then you don't want to change the law, you just want to switch the
beneficiaries?

Your question is unclear to me.

It sounds like you want men to have a free pass on all matters involving
reproduction and handing women sole responsibility; pretty much opposite
the way things are now.

Can you direct me to just what I said that leads you to believe so?

I can agree that as long as women have the right to bring to term or
abort because it is "inconvenient" that men should not be held
responsible either way but I think it would be best if both were held to
an equal standard without the ability to just opt out of all
responsibility.
For one thing, your desire for men to be able to walk away from all
children they are biologically fathers of would result in total
feministic socialism. Keep in mind that socialists like Hillary, Reid
and Kennedy are numerous in Washington. You may get your wish but the
taxes you pay would pale in comparison since the government would then
feel the need to rescue all these "poor women" with even more of YOUR
tax dollars.

Slippery slope. Not that we aren't ALREADY a feminazi society.







as well as what I would prefer, which
is equality of men and women in reproductive rights. Perhaps that
is
the
difference. Men are as aware of the causes of pregnancy as women
and
BOTH should be held to the same standards. They are not, which is
the
problem.

Only POST-conception. (see above)

I agree with you that the disparity is wrong and needs to be changed
but
it needs to be changed into "all adults should be held to the (same)
responsibility of their actions." Switching the sexism to benefit men
only doesn't make it any better, it only changes the sexism.
If women having options and men having responsibility is wrong,
reversing the roles is just as wrong.

Has someone suggested that?

It is your stance. Both TM and I see that so if we're incorrect, please
advise what specific rights and specific responsibilities both fathers
and mothers should have in your opinion.

Since it is your claim, how about you support it.





That men should not be responsible does not keep me from
wanting men to be both as responsible and have options equal to
that
of
women, whatever they are.

Make up your mind. But remember, what someone does to their own
body
is
their OWN business.

My mind is very much made up. I think both parents should be equal in
rights and responsibilities and neither should be allowed to abandon
OR
kill their offspring at any point in the creation of the child from
conception onward.

Then don't say "men should not be responsible"; it confuses the issue.

If they have no rights, they should not be responsible. If they are
responsible, they logically should have rights. It is not at all
confusing. It is an "either/or" situation.
I think ALL parents should be held equally responsible to raise their
own children in the manner they see fit (within reason) and failing to
do so should require them to pay others to do what they refuse to do
(not are prevented from doing).
Phil #3


I don't have a problem with allowing people to do what they want as
long
as it doesn't interfere with another but in matters of reproduction
there are at least three people involved, not one. Contraception is a
responsible act but abortion or abandonment is not.
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
...


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

.
.
"Phil" wrote in message
[snip]

Both had a part in its creation therefore both should be
equally
responsible for its life and upkeep.

Goodyear tire had a part in the creation of an automobile;
therefore,
Goodyear should be responsible for its upkeep.

Not even close. Goodyear made a TIRE that never became an
automobile.
The tire is more closely kin to clothing on a child than a child
itself.

Show me ONE sperm that became a child and I will personally hand
you a
a
million bucks!


I don't remember saying that a sperm ever became a child. (I'm
positive
I didn't because it is impossible)

Then a man cannot be responsible for the creation of a child, just
like
Goodyear is not responsible for the creation of a Buick. To say that
the
tire is like clothing on the child is equivalent to saying the sperm
is like
a car cover. Do you REALLY believe that?

No, you are mixing and confusing biology with law.
*Biology* takes two opposite sexes in the human species to create an
offspring but *the law* credits only one of them while often punishing
the other. These are NOT the same things at all.
Also, what I want and what is are just about as equally separate.



What I did say was that the action of sexual intercourse involving a
male and a female can produce a pregnancy. That is the issue, NOT who
is
responsible for the decision to allow a pregnancy to continue.

Nice twist! You said that a man should be responsible for his children
solely because of biology. This in spite of the fact that he had NO
choice
in the matter.

Sure he did. He has options of abstenance, condoms or sterilization or
taking the risk of the act in which he is agreeing to engage may produce
a pregnancy. His cooperation in the ACT that is known to create a
pregnancy is usually present, even though the intent may NOT be to
create one. The fact that the law does not give him any options after
pregnancy does not remove any options *before* the pregnancy occurs. He
still has the options to try to insure that no pregnancies occur from
his choice to engage in a sexual encounter with a member of the opposite
sex.
What I may have not stated clearly enough is that, and this is an
important point, *logically*, both parents should be equally responsible
for and to their biologically created children. It is NOT the way things
are but that is my opinion on the way it should be. It would require men
being given the same options as women have after pregnancy or that of
making women equally responsible for a pregnancy as men currently are.





We both know it isn't the way
things are

Nor should it be.

but I still think both should be held to the same standard,
same options and should have the same legal voice in their
children's
lives and outcomes PLUS an equal responsibility for them.

........ just not an equal voice in whether or not they shall
become a
parent.

Until conception the DO have the same voice. The problems don't
start
until conception occurs.
Please tell me which options a woman has before conception that a
man
doesn't.

The choice to not do something implies the choice TO do it. One
does
not
exist without the other. That's why it's called a "choice". The
option
to
become a parent PRE-conception legally belongs solely to the woman.

So you're saying that men dont have the legal ability to deny being
involved in sexual intercourse?

No. I'm saying that they lack the same legal choice that women have.

And I do NOT disagree with that.
We are apparently disagreeing with the cause of pregnancy.
If you feel men are as responsible for a pregnancy (not the laws
regarding pregnancy, abortion and custody but the actual fact that it
takes a man and a woman to creat one) as women are, we have no
disagreement.


Perhaps they cannot legally use condoms?
You are getting post-conception abilities confused with
pre-intercourse
options.

How so?

Legally and biologically, men and women have the same or similar options
before pregnancy, but women have LEGAL options afterward that are
withheld from men.
Before pregnancy, men and women are on an equal plane in regard to
reproduction. After pregnancy the law creates a different set of
options; for men, zero; for women several, including abortion with or
without the father's permission or knowledge and legal abandonment as
well as keeping it and forcing the father to provide her with cash for
the decision only she is allowed to make.


I had a vasectomy over 15 years ago at my request. I have engaged in
sexual intercourse hundreds of times since then without even one
becoming a pregnancy. It was my CHOICE to remove the risk of
pregnancy.
Condoms are another as well as the option of refusing to engage in
sex,
which is certainly inconvenient but it is an option. Men have a
couple
of legal options prior to conception, in fact that's the ONLY time
they
have them.

The ONLY "right" they have is to not engage in
sexual union. Not the same as a choice; and that would hardly qualify
as a
right. More of a restriction I might say. Bottom line: they have NO
legal
option.

To an extent you are correct as so many men have been duped into being
"father" when they are unrelated to the children but legally, they have
the same or similar options that women have until a pregnancy occurs.
They both can use contraceptives (even though men are limited to one
that is not all that effective), they can both remain celebate, they can
both choose to be sterilized or they can risk pregnancy. After pregnancy
is where the problems occur, not before.
How do you feel men are disadvantaged *before* pregnancy (other than any
resulting pregnancy is out of his control)?
What options do women have that are withheld from men BEFORE pregnancy?









Don't overthink this. This cannot be true as long as women and
only
women have the options to escape motherhood. I DID say I
disagreed
with
"safe havens" or other abandonment programs for women; I also
disagree
with abortion as birth control, both of which logically should
make
men's responsibility null and void.

Children can be legally adopted at ANY age. Thus, if one parent
wants
to
adopt away their parental responsibilities and the other
objects,
then
by
inference the opposing parent has become the adopted parent. All
parents
should have that right. Not just some....... ALL!

But this is post-conception. I have never argued that once
conception
occurs that women don't have several options that are withheld
from
men,
in fact, that's where this thread originated. Since the laws
grants
women only the abililty to decide the outcome, women should be
making
a
decision for themselves only in regard to reproduction.





Making irresponsibility equal doesn't do anything to stop
the problem. Any parent that doesn't want to be a parent
should
make
damn sure they don't become one

Legal impossibility for a man, post-conception.

The time to insure one doesn't become a parent is before
conception.

This restriction is placed upon ONLY men which is precisely
the
problem.

I don't disagree at all.

Yet you JUST advocated it!

The restriction should be placed on BOTH parents, period, full
stop.
Both parents should be equally liable for the support of any
children
they created which means to start with that either abortion on
demand
is
repealed or the right to opt out is extended in a legal manner to
men.

1' "They" don't create children.

No, they create a pregnancy. What happens after that is rather
unilateral.

Precisely!

And my contention is that since BOTH create a pregnancy, BOTH should
have equal rights and options and BOTH should have equal obligations
instead of the lopsided way things are handled in fact.



2. The "right to opt out" is CONTRARY to your prescription of
liability for
support.

Yep. Neither should have it or both should. I prefer that all parents
be
equally responsible for their children but I'll settle for both being
equal regardless the outcome.


Just as women can decide not to become a parent, men should have
that
same ability or if men are assumed to be a parent at the moment of
conception and alterations are not allowed, women who find
themselves
pregnant should be similarly locked into being responible for
their
actions just as men are. I've explained this pretty well, I think
(see
immediately below).

And when the man chooses birth while the woman chooses abortion?


I am anti-abortion on demand. Neither should be allowed to kill their
offspring from conception onward but if the law is going to allow
women
to kill them, men should have the same rights to

... kill them.

deny them without any
legal obligation. Under Roe V. Wade, men don't have a voice in
stopping
an abortion, even if the child is his. I don't agree with it but I
can't
change it.

Since you will settle for both being equal regardless of the outcome,
then
explain such equality in the case of post-conception pregnancy.

HUH?


I don't see any way to make sense of it no matter which one
decides to be irresponsible.

How about rights AND responsibilities?

That's what *I'VE* been saying all along.






That needs to be changed by making both parents
equally responsible for, and having equal rights in regard to a
pregnancy or child.


At
that time, both are equal in reproductive options.

Irrelevant as I was referring to the POST-conception time.

I'm talking about pre-conception

Again, irrelevant. Pre-conception is not the problem. That's why
pre-conception is NOT the topic.

Then you don't want to change the law, you just want to switch the
beneficiaries?

Your question is unclear to me.

It sounds like you want men to have a free pass on all matters
involving
reproduction and handing women sole responsibility; pretty much
opposite
the way things are now.

Can you direct me to just what I said that leads you to believe so?

That's the tone of your posts as I understood them.
That why I said "It sounds like..."


I can agree that as long as women have the right to bring to term or
abort because it is "inconvenient" that men should not be held
responsible either way but I think it would be best if both were held
to
an equal standard without the ability to just opt out of all
responsibility.
For one thing, your desire for men to be able to walk away from all
children they are biologically fathers of would result in total
feministic socialism. Keep in mind that socialists like Hillary, Reid
and Kennedy are numerous in Washington. You may get your wish but the
taxes you pay would pale in comparison since the government would
then
feel the need to rescue all these "poor women" with even more of YOUR
tax dollars.

Slippery slope. Not that we aren't ALREADY a feminazi society.

That's the way the US (and most of the "free world") has been headed for
a century which can be said to be options for women, responsibility for
men.
The results of all this is the society in which we live where elementary
school-aged children are buying and selling drugs and killing others
among other problems (as you properly pointed out, "a feminazi
society").








as well as what I would prefer, which
is equality of men and women in reproductive rights. Perhaps
that
is
the
difference. Men are as aware of the causes of pregnancy as
women
and
BOTH should be held to the same standards. They are not, which
is
the
problem.

Only POST-conception. (see above)

I agree with you that the disparity is wrong and needs to be
changed
but
it needs to be changed into "all adults should be held to the
(same)
responsibility of their actions." Switching the sexism to benefit
men
only doesn't make it any better, it only changes the sexism.
If women having options and men having responsibility is wrong,
reversing the roles is just as wrong.

Has someone suggested that?

Isn't that what you have said, that men should NOT be held to any
responsibility for any child since they didn't have any options after
pregnancy?


It is your stance. Both TM and I see that so if we're incorrect,
please
advise what specific rights and specific responsibilities both
fathers
and mothers should have in your opinion.

Since it is your claim, how about you support it.

I'm asking you for an explanation of your opinion since you seem to say
that TM and my opinions of your stance are incorrect. What have you been
trying to say in all these posts?
[Snip]
Phil #3