If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"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 |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
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 |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
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 |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
-- [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 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
TN - Child support termination bill attacked
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FL: Child-support bill clears panel | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | April 15th 06 10:49 PM |
CO: Bill Would Take Casino Winnings To Pay Child Support | Dusty | Child Support | 7 | April 6th 06 05:53 AM |
SC: Man ordered to pay 28-year-old child support bill or go to jail | Dusty | Child Support | 22 | January 26th 06 07:44 PM |
FL: Governor Signs Child Support, Paternity Bill | Dusty | Child Support | 2 | May 24th 05 02:17 AM |
LA: Bill would criminalize non-payment of child support | Dusty | Child Support | 28 | June 23rd 04 04:11 AM |