Sane Parenting Plan

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


Imagine a mother has a child and she's running into a rough time
paying her bills. She's on the verge of getting tossed out of her
apartment. Under today's system, the dad has likely been screwed over
pretty good. He has resentment built up over the way he was treated.
Now the CP comes over asking for help. His first thought would most
likely be to ask her how it feels to try to come up with money you
don't have. He may be thinking that once she is in the street he may
even go for custody since she won't be a fit parent. He might not even
want the child but this is a good way to get revenge and get out from
under the child support. In the meantime his child is watching all
this and wondering why won't her dad help her mom? The mother may be
telling the child it's because the father doesn't care about her or
that he is evil. In any case, she's not about to give up that child
support now that she needs money.

Under the system I'm suggesting, that ugly scene wouldn't play out
that way. First off, the guy wanted to be a dad so presumably he would
want to help. He has not been screwed over so there is no "need for
revenge". Since nobody "wins" custody, the dad could take the child
until the mother was back on her feet or help her out. It would take
away the incentive to do "battle", especially in front of the child.

Of course the presumtion here is that people are basically decent
instead of children that need the strong arm of the law to force them
into doing the right thing. The nice thing about doing it this way is
that nobody is being forced into becoming a parent. They both have the
option to not be parents and they both have the responsibility to take
care of what they said they wanted. Even if one parent later decided
to walk away, the other parent would gain the time with the child
which is what being a parent is all about. They were never in it for
the money to begin with or expecting someone else to take care of
them.

When it comes to divorce, the same rules would apply. The parent that
has the children that week would pay for them that week. With the
financial incentive gone, perhaps the divorce rate would drop as well.
In the end the government HAS to be removed from the entire matter of
how ours children are raised. We've seen what a disaster it has been
allowing them to meddle in day to day family affairs. They've turned
parents into combatants and put the kids right in the middle.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:31:50 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


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

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

You sure this is a good plan?


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

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

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

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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


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

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

You sure this is a good plan?


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

"Not every possible situation was thought up beforehand. This message
was only meant as a starting point for a discussion on an idea. This
is in no way to be considered medical or legal advice. For religious
aspects please see your local priest, rabbi, budda or all-being. This
disclaimer is only a partial disclaimer and other disclaimations my
also be applicable."
==
LOL! I see you know Moon! I put a similar disclaimer in for her years ago.
Had forgotten all about that. Thanks for the memories :-)

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

So you take the very most fringe cases and say that nobody anywhere should
benefit from common sense because somebody somewhere might be unfit? Rape
is a criminal offense. I'm pretty sure that the rapists behavior might
disqualify him from inserting himself into their lives. You do look for the
worst in men, don't you? How about if we disqualify women the same way?
She is a crack ho who has been known to pound on her boyfriends when she
gets high? Why should she get to choose motherhood?

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


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

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

You sure this is a good plan?


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

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

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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chuckle That should work!

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


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

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

You sure this is a good plan?


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

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

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


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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


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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon. In fact, you were asking for
specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies from all
other situations.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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



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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

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

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

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

Perhaps now, you start to see my point.



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?



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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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