Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:23:44 -0700, in article
, Bob Whiteside
spewed forth....

"Ambiance" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:25 -0700, in article
o8JNg.7988$Mz3.6163@fed1read07, Chris spewed forth....

"pandora" wrote in message
news:kM6dnaeLwYUlu5rYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Gini" ) writes:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...........................

There is no legal entity called "post conception choice", and
that is
because each party has times when they are able to choose and
times
when they cannot since the possible harm is housed in only one
body.
Obviously, men don't have the right to reach in and grab out the
problem, nor can they have laws based on the control they gave
up.
==
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

Moreover, authority follows responsibility.

So, where is the man's *authority* to affect matters ?

If he is granted NO authority, it is inconsistant to stick him
with responsibility for what he is *prevented* from affecting.

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "

Cool. So YOUR kids won't be supported by you. Hopefully, they won't
be
visited by you either.

Spoken like a true feminazi.

If you wouldn't consider supporting your children, you shouldn't get
women pregnant. Things are changing, and now male birth control is in
the future; no longer will guys be able to blame Women alone, for
accidental conceptions. : )

Ah yes, the old feminist line. Sex is something men do to helpless, hapless
women. Women don't get pregnant - Men get them pregnant.

I predict the feminists will be against any male birth control pill. After
all, if men can gain real control over their sperm women won't be able to
collect all the free money from the government for baby whelping. They
might actually have to stay with a man to continue their lifestyle.

I'm not saying that women are helpless or some crap like that... I'm just
saying that, often, when women get pregnant, guys complain about it. So,
male birth control will hopefully shut them up, and they can then be
responsible for their part.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...........................

There is no legal entity called "post conception choice", and that
is
because each party has times when they are able to choose and times
when they cannot since the possible harm is housed in only one
body.
Obviously, men don't have the right to reach in and grab out the
problem, nor can they have laws based on the control they gave up.
==
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

He is 100% responsible whether or not he has control.
==
And that make sense to you. Amusing.

Well, it also makes sense to the Supreme Court, so I stand on good
solid ground here.

Care to quote just what the Supreme Court said that makes you believe so?

The SC seems to support equal rights for women, in many cases, so they
obviously would not be willing to give men special rights regarding
support of their children.


In any regard, it looks like the Supreme Court is your final ultimate moral
compass. Is that correct?

No, but it does tend to support my views....most of the time.

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not they house
the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of raising a child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the child 50% of the
time, and they inconvenience themselves to make sure that their child
has
2
parents, then maybe we can talk about co-responsibility. Money is only
a
part of it.

Parents are both responsible for their children whether or not they
raise them; you didn't know that?

Parents sould *both* have the blessing and joy of raising their children.
Didn't you know that?

No....and apparently, neither do the courts who usually award custody
to the parent who was already providing primary care. After all, you
don't want the child being raised in a hostile home inviorn.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not they house
the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of raising a child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the child 50% of the
time, and they inconvenience themselves to make sure that their child
has 2 parents, then maybe we can talk about co-responsibility. Money is
only a part of it.

So how do you propose ensuring all parents to do their (at least) 50% of
parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and enforce this?

Well, Moon, they had to get together to create the child so they can
continue being close enough together to parent the child. At the very
least, both parents should have the same options: to parent or not to
parent, and if they bvoth choose to parent, and equal amount of time with
the child. Your situation is not the norm. The majority of divorcing
parents want to continue to parent their children.

My question was not about who desires what - you stated that each parent has
the child 50% of the time. I didn't bring *my* situation into it. My
situation is no more the norm than yours is. I asked how you propose to
make sure that 50% parenting happens - because in far too many cases, it
doesn't.

So again... How do you propose ensuring all parents to do their (at least)
50% of parenting? Do you have some plan to mandate and enforce this?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

ABarlow wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
Meldon Fens wrote:

Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by
case
basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see
their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in
that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services
and children will get that money long before fathers do.

Sometimes it is not in the child's best interest to see their mothers
either, but despite the fact that women are at least as likely to abuse
children as men (women are actually considerably higher in terms of
negligence and physical abuse, IIRC), women still seem to end up
winning ~95% of custody cases. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet
to hear any authority explain why this is the case.

Apparently, the mothers who are gaining custody are those mothers who
are not abusing or neglecting their children and who already were
primary caregivers. You must also remember that fathers who walk away
from their own children are no longer there to tend them.

How about the mothers who take the children and walk away from the
fathers? What should be done about that?

Probably about the same thing that is done about fathers that walk away from
the mothers and children.

Not a whole hell of a lot.

On 13 Sep 2006 02:08:06 GMT, in article ,
Andre Lieven spewed forth....
Ambiance ) claims that women are non-sentient:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:25 -0700, in article
o8JNg.7988$Mz3.6163@fed1read07, Chris spewed forth....

"pandora" wrote in message
news:kM6dnaeLwYUlu5rYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Gini" ) writes:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...........................

There is no legal entity called "post conception choice", and that is
because each party has times when they are able to choose and times
when they cannot since the possible harm is housed in only one body.
Obviously, men don't have the right to reach in and grab out the
problem, nor can they have laws based on the control they gave up.
==
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

Moreover, authority follows responsibility.

So, where is the man's *authority* to affect matters ?

If he is granted NO authority, it is inconsistant to stick him
with responsibility for what he is *prevented* from affecting.

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "

Cool. So YOUR kids won't be supported by you. Hopefully, they won't be
visited by you either.

Spoken like a true feminazi.

If you wouldn't consider supporting your children, you shouldn't get
women pregnant.

laughs What, the women in question were all unconscious before,
during and afterwards ? Plus, since women HAVE many post coital
choices, the act of getting a woman pregnant does NOT mean that
said woman MUST bear a child.

Word-twisting. You know what I mean. It will then be the responsibility
of BOTH partners to prevent pregnancy.... that's my point, idiot.


Your fcats are un-coordinated, and garbled.

My what?


Things are changing, and now male birth control is in
the future; no longer will guys be able to blame Women alone, for
accidental conceptions. : )

No one pays *child* support for " conceptions ".

Yes, Feminists ARE that dumb !

The ignorance is all yours, Andre. You DO know that a conception results
in a child... right???

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...................
Men make the choice to RISK childbirth, whether or not they
house
the
harm.
==
As do women.

Indeed. So now you see why they share the expense of raising a
child
THEY co-create.

And when it gets to the point that each parent has the child 50% of
the
time, and they inconvenience themselves to make sure that their
child
has
2
parents, then maybe we can talk about co-responsibility. Money is
only
a
part of it.

Parents are both responsible for their children whether or not they
raise them; you didn't know that?

Parents sould *both* have the blessing and joy of raising their
children.
Didn't you know that?

No....and apparently, neither do the courts who usually award custody
to the parent who was already providing primary care. After all, you
don't want the child being raised in a hostile home inviorn.

Let me guess . . . You define "providing primary care" as those tasks
performed by mothers like breast feeding, changing diapers, dressing the
child, going to meet with teachers, etc.

And you exclude from your definition of "providing primary care" father
oriented tasks like earning money, do maintenance on the home, teaching the
child to assert themselves and take risks, etc.

BTW - The primary care child custody standard has not been the law in any
state for years. The current standard is the "best interest of the child"
standard. Unfortunately, the judges are still using the primary care
standard to determine custody when the law says they should be using the
best interests standard. That is one of the reasons why fathers complain
about judicial bias.

"Hyerdahl" wrote

Chris wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote

Gini wrote:
..........................................
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

He is 100% responsible whether or not he has control.
==
And that make sense to you. Amusing.

Well, it also makes sense to the Supreme Court, so I stand on good
solid ground here.

Care to quote just what the Supreme Court said that makes you believe so?

The SC seems to support equal rights for women, in many cases, so they
obviously would not be willing to give men special rights regarding
support of their children.
==
LOL! Now there's legal authority for ya!

"Ambiance" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:25 -0700, in article
o8JNg.7988$Mz3.6163@fed1read07, Chris spewed forth....

"pandora" wrote in message
news:kM6dnaeLwYUlu5rYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Gini" ) writes:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...........................

There is no legal entity called "post conception choice", and that
is
because each party has times when they are able to choose and
times
when they cannot since the possible harm is housed in only one
body.
Obviously, men don't have the right to reach in and grab out the
problem, nor can they have laws based on the control they gave up.
==
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

Moreover, authority follows responsibility.

So, where is the man's *authority* to affect matters ?

If he is granted NO authority, it is inconsistant to stick him
with responsibility for what he is *prevented* from affecting.

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "

Cool. So YOUR kids won't be supported by you. Hopefully, they won't
be
visited by you either.

Spoken like a true feminazi.

If you wouldn't consider supporting your children, you shouldn't get
women pregnant. Things are changing, and now male birth control is in
the future; no longer will guys be able to blame Women alone, for
accidental conceptions. : )

Perhaps it is also reasonable to say that a woman who is unable to support a
child shouldn't get pregnant. With the nonstop whine we have seen in this
thread about poor widdle women and the tewwible burden of carrying the
child, that might be the best solution of all.

"Ambiance" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:23:44 -0700, in article
, Bob Whiteside
spewed forth....

"Ambiance" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:25 -0700, in article
o8JNg.7988$Mz3.6163@fed1read07, Chris spewed
forth....

"pandora" wrote in message
news:kM6dnaeLwYUlu5rYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Gini" ) writes:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...........................

There is no legal entity called "post conception choice", and
that is
because each party has times when they are able to choose and
times
when they cannot since the possible harm is housed in only one
body.
Obviously, men don't have the right to reach in and grab out
the
problem, nor can they have laws based on the control they gave
up.
==
Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control?

Moreover, authority follows responsibility.

So, where is the man's *authority* to affect matters ?

If he is granted NO authority, it is inconsistant to stick him
with responsibility for what he is *prevented* from affecting.

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility*. "

Cool. So YOUR kids won't be supported by you. Hopefully, they
won't
be
visited by you either.

Spoken like a true feminazi.

If you wouldn't consider supporting your children, you shouldn't get
women pregnant. Things are changing, and now male birth control is in
the future; no longer will guys be able to blame Women alone, for
accidental conceptions. : )

Ah yes, the old feminist line. Sex is something men do to helpless,
hapless
women. Women don't get pregnant - Men get them pregnant.

I predict the feminists will be against any male birth control pill.
After
all, if men can gain real control over their sperm women won't be able to
collect all the free money from the government for baby whelping. They
might actually have to stay with a man to continue their lifestyle.

I'm not saying that women are helpless or some crap like that... I'm just
saying that, often, when women get pregnant, guys complain about it. So,
male birth control will hopefully shut them up, and they can then be
responsible for their part.

And you haven't noticed some of the women in this thread complaining about
the terrible, risky burdens of pregnancy, which automatically entitles them
to 2 decades of having the hapless man with whom they enjoyed wild and
passionate sex support them so they can support the child?