Sane Parenting Plan

Dave wrote:
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.

You would have to check with each state but I know there are laws to
protect victims of rape. Unlike in years past, the rapist has no
parental rights automatically if the woman decides to have the child.

Children have enough anguish in their lives. They don't need it
compounded by meetings with Daddy the rapist. Good lord.

Moon Shyne wrote:

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

Wow, Moon Shyne said something intelligent.

It's like watching a dog walk on two legs, isn't it?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:E8oOg.14764$xk3.3086@dukeread07...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

Wow, Moon Shyne said something intelligent.

Ron - she has been saying a lot of good things in this thread. It is no
different than what I told my husband just last month. The ONLY people who
will walk away with anything are the attorneys, because he is not going to
get what he wants - period. He'll end up with nothing, and I won't end up
with nothing. The idiot should have kept his pants zipped like he promised.
Meanwhile my attorney is laughing his ass off, and why not?? It is totally
stupid of my husband's part to make the demands he is when he doesn't have a
leg to stand on. He is crazy, because he could have walked away with $15k
just a week before finding out about his affair when I told him I was going
to file for a divorce. Right then and there he could have let me go and be
done with it... but no he had to ask me to allow him to prove to me he
wanted our marriage to work.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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



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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

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

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

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

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


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

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

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

*I* have opinions set in stone?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

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

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

Ok.

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you stop being so nasty and put down in clear terms what you *do*
think should be the starting point to a fair and balanced way to handle the
issue, then Moon, and stop dancing around it. How do you think things
should be handled?

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:E8oOg.14764$xk3.3086@dukeread07...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

Wow, Moon Shyne said something intelligent.

Yeah, but she thinks the disinterested 3rd party is the courts!


It's like watching a dog walk on two legs, isn't it?

- Ron ^*^

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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



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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

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

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

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

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


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

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

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

*I* have opinions set in stone?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

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

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

Ok.

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you stop being so nasty and put down in clear terms what you
*do* think should be the starting point to a fair and balanced way to
handle the issue, then Moon, and stop dancing around it. How do you think
things should be handled?

I decided to pull off the gloves on that post, Teach, because of the tenor
of your responses all along - and I knew that it would get your attention,
since you weren't reading what I had actually posted.

I've already stated that there isn't a one size fits all, so there will
NEVER be a single solution. I've already stated that,k and you've chosen to
ignore it, and instead fabricate responses that you then attribute to me.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:E8oOg.14764$xk3.3086@dukeread07...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

Wow, Moon Shyne said something intelligent.

Yeah, but she thinks the disinterested 3rd party is the courts

There you go again, fanbricating things and attributing them to me.

Please show where I said that the disinterested 3rd party is the courts, or
please quit fabricating things and attributing them to me,

Your choice.



It's like watching a dog walk on two legs, isn't it?

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:E8oOg.14764$xk3.3086@dukeread07...


Moon Shyne wrote:


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

Wow, Moon Shyne said something intelligent.

Yeah, but she thinks the disinterested 3rd party is the courts


There you go again, fanbricating things and attributing them to me.

Please show where I said that the disinterested 3rd party is the courts, or
please quit fabricating things and attributing them to me,

Wow, Moon. I'll bite -- who DID you mean by a disinterested 3rd party,
if not the courts?

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
news:9a4fg2hn6f7k810oc2og5sj1om3tc9dn1d @4ax.com...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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


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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

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

In fact, you were asking for

specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies
from all other situations.

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

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


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

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

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

*I* have opinions set in stone?

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

I am saying that people are capable of

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

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

And I do think that you aer purposely ingnoring the

"starting point" part that I keep mentioning, just a plan that you don't
agree with.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Rape

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

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

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

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

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

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

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

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

Ok.

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

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


You do look for the

worst in men, don't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you stop being so nasty and put down in clear terms what you
*do* think should be the starting point to a fair and balanced way to
handle the issue, then Moon, and stop dancing around it. How do you think
things should be handled?


I decided to pull off the gloves on that post, Teach, because of the tenor
of your responses all along - and I knew that it would get your attention,
since you weren't reading what I had actually posted.

I've already stated that there isn't a one size fits all, so there will
NEVER be a single solution. I've already stated that,k and you've chosen to
ignore it, and instead fabricate responses that you then attribute to me.

I think you are hiding behind the fact that there is no written family
court assumption about who should get the kids, father or mother. There
is a lot of stuff about "best interests of the child", which does in
fact sound like the best idea.

However, what many men are upset about is that this idealistic sounding
philosophy isn't borne up by reality. The reality is that courts still
assume (in action and enactment, if not in written policy) that children
will go to their mothers.

It's like if a store placed an ad in the paper looking for new
employees, and the ad said "Blacks need not apply", and some people got
upset about this and took the store to court where they were forced to
remove the offensive phrase from their ad and replace it with "We are an
equal opportunity employer" -- but the store kept on refusing to hire
Black people. What's written down sounds really good, but it isn't
borne up by reality.

Demanding a presumption of 50/50 joint physical placement can be seen as
akin to demanding enforced equal opportunity employment. It isn't the
same thing, but it has many parallels.

I don't expect you to actually "get" this, Moon, I'm mostly posting it
for other people who might read this.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:RPvOg.14791$xk3.14055@dukeread07...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
news:9a4fg2hn6f7k810oc2og5sj1om3tc9dn1 ...

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

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

You sure this is a good plan?

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

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

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

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


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

I never saw that part of your posts, Moon.

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

In fact, you were asking for

specific answers, which do not exist because each situation varies
from all other situations.

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

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


Perhaps now, you start to see my point.

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

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

*I* have opinions set in stone?

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

I am saying that people are capable of

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

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

And I do think that you aer purposely ingnoring the

"starting point" part that I keep mentioning, just a plan that you
don't agree with.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Rape

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

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

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

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

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

And you still can't see the hypocrisy?

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

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

Ok.

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

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


You do look for the

worst in men, don't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't you stop being so nasty and put down in clear terms what you
*do* think should be the starting point to a fair and balanced way to
handle the issue, then Moon, and stop dancing around it. How do you
think things should be handled?


I decided to pull off the gloves on that post, Teach, because of the
tenor of your responses all along - and I knew that it would get your
attention, since you weren't reading what I had actually posted.

I've already stated that there isn't a one size fits all, so there will
NEVER be a single solution. I've already stated that,k and you've chosen
to ignore it, and instead fabricate responses that you then attribute to
me.

I think you are hiding behind the fact that there is no written family
court assumption about who should get the kids, father or mother. There
is a lot of stuff about "best interests of the child", which does in fact
sound like the best idea.

However, what many men are upset about is that this idealistic sounding
philosophy isn't borne up by reality. The reality is that courts still
assume (in action and enactment, if not in written policy) that children
will go to their mothers.

I make no claims to be in a position to state what some other entity
assumes.


It's like if a store placed an ad in the paper looking for new employees,
and the ad said "Blacks need not apply", and some people got upset about
this and took the store to court where they were forced to remove the
offensive phrase from their ad and replace it with "We are an equal
opportunity employer" -- but the store kept on refusing to hire Black
people. What's written down sounds really good, but it isn't borne up by
reality.

Demanding a presumption of 50/50 joint physical placement can be seen as
akin to demanding enforced equal opportunity employment. It isn't the
same thing, but it has many parallels.

I don't expect you to actually "get" this, Moon, I'm mostly posting it for
other people who might read this.

Ah - so you couldn't post for other people who might read it, without
getting in the gratuitous slam againat me.

Got it.


- Ron ^*^