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 |
#1181
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "Chris" wrote in : What she is saying is that men should have a way of deciding they don't want to be parents early on, *just like women already do*. Parents who take on the responsibilities of parenting their child can't just decide they don't want to anymore, male or female. Yet they do on a regular basis, legally! Prove it. You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption. Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome. Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to take on the responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification. Men should have the same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do not happen based on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in the picture. Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are equally parents (rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when the mother gets SOLE custody? CP/NCP--just like the courts do. Although correct, not what I was looking for. chuckle That does not surprise me...... Nor does your answer surprise me. Of course not. Because you are only looking for people who agree with you that men should be able to walk away from their children any time they choose to, free and clear with no remaining responsibility. No I'm not. You are NOT looking for a way to balance the rights and responsibilities of BOTH parents. Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all rights; that is REAL rights. The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk away. You want to use the current system to justify men walking away from children. When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things so that fathers and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With you it's always "the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a child into the world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will *never* carry a baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems that you feel that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth the child, so women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for and support the child. The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights to men doesn't hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant. Instead, it hinges on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the reproductive rights made available to women and those made available to men. As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30 or so years, women have been given a range of post-conception reproductive rights. These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in many states, and (as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral decisions about adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is made to DENY men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has given them -- that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies. Furthermore, the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men post-conception rights. Why should it be in any way controversial to say that men shouldn't have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It would be easy to provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal rights and responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would seem to be far LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since it would not entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child. The current situation reflects nothing more than the reality that there is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for women. However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect men's rights and prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made by women. I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current system and say that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is to reset the system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and responsibilities. Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage briging a child to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be able to walk away whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant. Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding of the relationship between rights and responsibilities. I'm not the one who lacks understanding here, Chris. That you find it "repugnant" certainly suggests you do. That aside, just what IS your understanding of the relationship? I do believe that if 50/50 shared custody were the default position we would see far fewer situations where children were being raised in single-parent households. And if women were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial support of their children, we would also see far fewer single parent households. Just giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the problem. Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them by nature; the choice whether or not to give birth, correct? Sure, Chris. Ah, that mysterious double standard appears once again. I don't see how it is a double standard, if men have the same post-birth right to safe haven as women do. If, right after birth, either or both parents can give up their parental rights and responsibilities, how is that a double standard? (I know that is not how it is right now, but that still does not justify your contention that *men* should be permitted to walk away from their children any time they want to--and you feel that this would balance the abortion thing?) A woman can "walk away" from a pregnancy at ANY time due to a "right" afforded by nature; but a man can NOT walk away from a child at any time due to a right afforded by nature Once the child is born and the safe haven time has expired a woman cannot walk away from the child any time any more than the man can, Chris. Ever hear of adoption? Even so, somehow that makes my claim false? You're missing the boat. For some strange reason the woman has the right to FORCE the man into a choice. Explain. Ever hear of the father having to be notified before his child is adopted out? Uhuh. "Father: unknown"................ next. Uuuuuuhhhh.....then that man was never in any danger of being forced to be a parent. Did you readthe next line before you made your comment? Can a married woman adopt out her children without the husband/father's approval just because she is a woman? Yes. Women adopt away the father's child on a regular basis........ to themselves. No they don't. That's not adoption, and you know it perfectly well. A woman cannot walk away from a child any more than a man can, Chris, once that parenting obligation has been undertaken. and you know perfectly well that I do not think that a woman should be able to force a man into the original obligation to become a parent. Becoming a parent, for a man, is not an obligation. Rather it's a matter of a woman's SOLE choice. That you are unable to digest this simple fact no less makes it so. Absolutely ridiculous, Chris. Married couples plan to have children and follow through on that all the time. The fact that the man later changes his mind does not turn the decision into a unilateral choice by the mother. The fact that the woman later wants the child to herself does not mean that the man should no longer be a father. That does *not* mean that I think a man should be able to walk away from any child at any time. Just curious: You made the comment that a man choosing to raise a child is locked into a permanent "child support" commitment barring a legal adoption. I actually did not say that. I said that a man should not be able to just walk away from his child because he is tired of being a father. Just as I think that a woman should not be able to force a man out of a child's life because she wants to be the only parent--and wants nothing more than money from the man. BOTH are equally despicable. |
#1182
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the woman who decides to abort does. Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person, Chris. After the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right to walk away. Yopur contention is ridiculous. No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the right to abort. I don't think abortion is a moral choice, but that does not make it right for either parent to just walk out on a child that he/she has supported for years. Your above statement is unclear. Are you saying that whether or not someone aborts is not a moral choice or that choosing to abort is immoral? I would never abort a child because I think it is an immoral thing to do. Then perhaps you are debating in the wrong newsgroup. Unless you believe that preventing fathers from walking away from their children takes precendence over stopping abortions. Oh don't be ridiculouas, Chris. The chances of abortion being made illegal again are very slim. Irrelevant. Only in your mind, Chris. You cannot say that a woman's legal right to abort her child would be the same thing as a man being able to walk away from his children any time he felt like it, leaving behind all responsibility. You're right. Walking away from said child is far worse than merely killing it; thus not the same. chuckle You do twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify men's right to abandon children at will, Chris. And as an excuse you use the wrongness of the system today to justify your opinions. I am beginning to think that you do not want to get rid of the system at all--merely want to add to it the legal right of any man to abandon any child at any time. |
#1183
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST as the woman who decides to abort does. Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person, Chris. After the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right to walk away. Yopur contention is ridiculous. No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the right to abort. I don't think abortion is a moral choice, but that does not make it right for either parent to just walk out on a child that he/she has supported for years. Your above statement is unclear. Are you saying that whether or not someone aborts is not a moral choice or that choosing to abort is immoral? I would never abort a child because I think it is an immoral thing to do. Then perhaps you are debating in the wrong newsgroup. Unless you believe that preventing fathers from walking away from their children takes precendence over stopping abortions. Oh don't be ridiculouas, Chris. The chances of abortion being made illegal again are very slim. Irrelevant. Only in your mind, Chris. Explain the relevancy. You cannot say that a woman's legal right to abort her child would be the same thing as a man being able to walk away from his children any time he felt like it, leaving behind all responsibility. You're right. Walking away from said child is far worse than merely killing it; thus not the same. chuckle You do twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify men's right to abandon children at will, Chris. And as an excuse you use the wrongness of the system today to justify your opinions. I am beginning to think that you do not want to get rid of the system at all--merely want to add to it the legal right of any man to abandon any child at any time. But I just AGREED with you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child | fx | Spanking | 0 | September 14th 07 04:50 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 24th 07 10:01 AM |
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 13th 04 12:35 AM |