Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"pandora" wrote in message
news:Hu6dnUhzQ93Jt4rYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"pandora" wrote in message
news:0YidnU2jws0xe4vYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

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

teachrmama wrote:
(edit
I don't think women HIDE their pregnancies all that well,
'mama';
it
appears to me that they have to be UP FRONT about it. :-) What
they
don't owe you or any other man, however, is any kind of n sperm
condition report. Their bodies are their own and yours is your
own.
Nifty, how that works.

You are a nut job! Women who do not inform men that they have
fathered
a
chikld are selfish and self-centered and should have the child
taken
from
them for neglecting to inform the man.

Wow. Someone was having a real hissy fit. I wonder if SHE would
like
all
women to inform the public when they have their periods as well? I
mean
we
could go back to the communal house for unclean women and all.

Are you equating being pregnant with being unclean? Wow,
interesting.....

Are you dense or just like to play stupid?


Ah, but they don't. Judges like complying with The Constitution,
giving women equal rights. That must really frost your hide. ;-)

I'm sure it does, for some. I find it terribly amusing when some
discover
that having equal rights under the law for women means that women
don't
have
to do whatever someone else thinks they should.

Is that what equal rights means? "I don't have to do what you say!!"
Which
means that you believe that MEN don't have to be fathers just because
women
want them to.

I would hazard a guess that some women don't want them to so your
argument
falls flat.

Oh--an argument falls flat if there are aberrations?
Hmmmmmm.........So--winter is cold in Montana, but if they ahave a couple
of
spring-like days in January, the argument that winter is cold in Montana
falls flat. Interesting.......

As well, it doesn't have anything to do with what women (or
anyone for that matter), wants. If you believe that, you really are
stupid.
Men are fathers because they are and not unless they are

On the contrary, there are many men who have been declared to be "fathers"
who are not, in fact, fathers. "They are because they are"
is....um....dumb.



and society feels
it is reasonable for men to take some responsibility for their progeny.

No "society" doesn't. Most people don't know anything about the system in
place today.

Personally, I could care less if they lost all rights to their progeny
but
that's just me.

Oh, so you are among those who feel that men are irrelevant except for
their
sperm--and their money. Interesting.......

It is precisely such mentality that promotes rape, disrespect for, and even
the murder of women. How? Because women like her raise little boys to
believe that they have no value with the exceptions that you listed above.
As such, they eventually conclude that if they have no worth, then women
also have no worth............



Hmmmm....interesting. I never would have believed it of you,
Marg.

Whatever you believe, is wrong.

You said that equality meant not having to do what others told you--I
didn't
make that up.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ben" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

teachrmama wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:MjXQg.20041$KA6.2326@clgrps12...
Hyerdahl wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

(edit)

(edit)


She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child
support system
would
ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything
other than
pain and punishment.

Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up
to each
person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they
co-create.

If the woman and the man have not had contact since they had sex,
then
it's up to her to inform him of his status as a parent.

Why isn't it equally up to him to find out? After all, he IS the
one who faces the possibility of 18-21 years of child support -
where's his sense of self-preservation?


You are talking out of both sides of your face. What you're saying is
that her 'medical' condition is his business.

And you would have seen me post this ......... where?


Jesus! waffling again.

In other posts you whine
about privacy issues.
You can't have it both ways. How does a man confirm that a woman is
pregnant or not within the laws governing stalking?

I'm sorry that you can't conceive of the easy option of (1) knowing
your sex partner, and (2) being able to take a walk and seeing her in
person - which will pretty much tell you if she's sporting a belly
with a 6 (or more or less) month fetus.

So, woman vacations for 3 days in Las Vegas and meets and has sex with
someone she met in a bar then goes home. Somehow it's right that he has
to travel to her home, uninvited, to check on her condition and too
troublesome for her to have to dial a telephone him to tell him the
news? If he does and is arrested for stalking, based on your posts over
the past many years, you'd want him convicted of stalking and
imprisoned, then when he gets out of jail, rearrested for failing to pay
support while in jail.
You really seem to think women are incapable of anything other than
having babies for someone else to support.





Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they
co-create.

Yep.

Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked
when for
whom the bell tolls, tolls for them.

Nonsense statement designed to skirt the issue of child support
agencies not doing their job in giving notice.

And if men are aware of the pitfalls and failings of the child
support agencies, why aren't they that much MORE self-protective of
their own interests?

Most men seem to be laboring under the delusion that the government
will be fair and honest. It is not until one has gone through some
form of subverted 'justice' that they learn different.

So why do you think it's taking men so long to catch a clue?

It is not adequately reported. It is one of those things that never
occur and would not be believed unless seen with one's own eyes.




And fourth, that it is not up to
me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but
it's a
good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create.

This would also apply to feckless women, because if the men are
reproducing in an irresponsible manner, the same would be true of
women.


I agree to all of the above. It couldn't be any clearer. I don't
know what
it is that some people would like to see happen. To NOT be
responsible for
child support to children they co-create? Is that really a
reasonable
expectation in our society?

Being irresponsible is often not the issue; abuse of the system is.
When we have a system that not only shrugs at paternity fraud but
rewards it, that's irresponsible. It's also unreasonable to jail
NCP
who have a genuine inability to pay the full CS award.

Is it reasonable to penalize the NCP who has the ability to pay, and
simply chooses not to?

I don't think many advocate that NCPs not pay *something*. The
difference is that NCPs who are good parents should be allowed to be
equal and full parents. If C$ is necessary, it should be reasonable
and equally applied to both parents in regard to the support of the
children with equal treatment for either parent failing to do so.



Just WHO would be expected to pay for their
support then? The rest of us? Why should we?

We do already, either through welfare or any number of programs
designed to assist low income individuals and families. And unless
you
want to start advocating for laws that will compel a mother to
either
name the father or be turned away from these programs,

Um, bud? This is already in place - when a woman applies for any
benefits for the children, if she doesn't name a father, her
application is denied. If she claims rape, she has to provide the
police report where it was reported, or her application is denied.
If she claims that the father could be one of a number of men, she
has to provide all the names, or her application is denied. (At
least in Wisconsin)


we will continue
to pay for no other reason than she either can't or won't name the
father.

Oh, now and then, we get
stuck with paying for some child that neither parent can afford to
support,

It's far, far more than "now and then".

but do we really want to encourage more of that irresponsible
behavior? I
had 3 children. I would have liked to have had more. Why didn't
I?
Because I was aware that the level I wanted my kids to live at,
wouldn't be
possible if we had more. It was touch and go for a while there
even so. Do
we really want to have a bunch of irresponsible people running
around having
kids and leaving it up to the rest of us to support them? I don't
****ing
think so!

lol Marg, it's already happening.

Oh, helping out is fine by me.

Helping out is fine. Creating dependency and supporting
irresponsible
child-bearing is another matter.

Do you hold men who irresponsible impregnate to the same standard?


Pregnancy does not equal childbirth. In the US, no woman has to give
birth.

And similarly, in the US, no woman is required to terminate a
pregnancy - so why haven't men caught a clue to this little detail?
Sure as heck, I've already explained these details to my son


Many reasons. They may be aware of the details but have no idea how
unfair it is until they are forced to virtually abandon their children
and are saddled with two decades of support payments or are forced to
stand idly by while his unborn child is being slaughtered.
I hope you informed your son that men are held to a much higher standard
than women and more is expected of them.



But fathers, in particular, don't
get a get out of being a parent card just for playing with sex.

I agree that no one gets a pass on their responsibility, but the
ongoing debate will always be over the fairness of the assignment
of
responsibility.

Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE
pregnant, you'll never have 100% fairness.

Neither men nor women can be legally forced to become or remain
pregnant.
If women are limited to exactly the same rights as men from
pre-conception throughout the lives of any children they have, it's
fair.
Is allowing women more rights than men somehow unfair to women?

How would you propose equalizing something that is inherantly unequal
(the presence of a uterus versus the absence)?

Even feminism cannot undo natural occurrences (smirk) but the legal
outcomes CAN be equalized. Feminists claim that biology is not destiny
for women but then turn around and say it IS for men.
Women have the rights of abortion, adoption, abandonment or keeping the
child to raise. Men should have equal legal rights to the same thing.
They cannot abort the child as it involves her body but by the same
token, he should not be forced to do something that the mother is not,
which in this instance is accept that once conception has occurred, it
is irreversable from a legal standpoint.
If women can decide during pregnancy or after childbirth they don't want
to be a parent and simply reject the responsibility that that incurs,
men should have an equal right within the same timeline.


Please keep in mind, however, that the OUTCOME needs to be equal, as
well as the options.

Nope, only the outcome of the choice one makes can be equal. If a woman
wants to keep and raise a child after the father has informed her he
doesn't share her choice, the responsibility should be hers and hers
alone. Fathers do not have that unilateral choice.
Women have unilateral choice and because of that, the outcome is *their*
choice AND their responsibility. Give men an equal choice and they share
the responsibility. As it is, women have sole choice and only the
responsibility they choose. Men have NO choice and up to 100% of the
responsibility, depending on the woman's choice.
Phil #3

"pandora" wrote in message
news:5LOdnS3W54HpaYvYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Ben" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

teachrmama wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:MjXQg.20041$KA6.2326@clgrps12...
Hyerdahl wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

(edit)

(edit)


She just doesn't want to believe that her beloved child
support
system
would
ever do anything deceptive--or that any man deserves anything
other than
pain and punishment.

Here's what I believe about child support. First, that it's up
to
each
person to make sure he or she KNOWs about any children they
co-create.

If the woman and the man have not had contact since they had sex,
then
it's up to her to inform him of his status as a parent.

Why isn't it equally up to him to find out? After all, he IS the
one
who faces the possibility of 18-21 years of child support - where's
his sense of self-preservation?


You are talking out of both sides of your face. What you're saying is
that her 'medical' condition is his business. In other posts you
whine
about privacy issues.

Her medical condition is none of his business. Her carrying his child
is
his business.

So you disagree with Moonie?


You can't have it both ways. How does a man confirm that a woman is
pregnant or not within the laws governing stalking?

One can look and then ask.

So stalking is okay but only at times that benefit the woman. Got it.




Secondly, that each parent owes support to a child they
co-create.

Yep.

Third, that people who live in caves should not be too shocked
when for
whom the bell tolls, tolls for them.

Nonsense statement designed to skirt the issue of child support
agencies not doing their job in giving notice.

And if men are aware of the pitfalls and failings of the child
support
agencies, why aren't they that much MORE self-protective of their
own
interests?

Most men seem to be laboring under the delusion that the government
will
be fair and honest. It is not until one has gone through some form of
subverted 'justice' that they learn different.

Translation: Most men expect that the laws will continue the attitude
of
special privileges for men and they are completely taken by surprise
when
they don't. Got it.

What you "got" is that women are too immature to be trusted with
responsibility, and you're wrong there too.
Please inform everyone exactly which special privleges men have that
women don't? (Other than the ability to pee standing up, absence of
periods and other NATURAL occurrences).
Phil #3


Marg


And fourth, that it is not up to
me or the courts to administer punishment to feckless men, but
it's a
good thing to make them pay for that which they co-create.

This would also apply to feckless women, because if the men are
reproducing in an irresponsible manner, the same would be true of
women.


I agree to all of the above. It couldn't be any clearer. I
don't
know what
it is that some people would like to see happen. To NOT be
responsible for
child support to children they co-create? Is that really a
reasonable
expectation in our society?

Being irresponsible is often not the issue; abuse of the system
is.
When we have a system that not only shrugs at paternity fraud but
rewards it, that's irresponsible. It's also unreasonable to jail
NCP
who have a genuine inability to pay the full CS award.

Is it reasonable to penalize the NCP who has the ability to pay,
and
simply chooses not to?

I don't think many advocate that NCPs not pay *something*. The
difference is that NCPs who are good parents should be allowed to be
equal and full parents. If C$ is necessary, it should be reasonable
and
equally applied to both parents in regard to the support of the
children
with equal treatment for either parent failing to do so.



Just WHO would be expected to pay for their
support then? The rest of us? Why should we?

We do already, either through welfare or any number of programs
designed to assist low income individuals and families. And
unless
you
want to start advocating for laws that will compel a mother to
either
name the father or be turned away from these programs,

Um, bud? This is already in place - when a woman applies for any
benefits for the children, if she doesn't name a father, her
application is denied. If she claims rape, she has to provide the
police report where it was reported, or her application is denied.
If
she claims that the father could be one of a number of men, she has
to
provide all the names, or her application is denied. (At least in
Wisconsin)


we will continue
to pay for no other reason than she either can't or won't name the
father.

Oh, now and then, we get
stuck with paying for some child that neither parent can afford
to
support,

It's far, far more than "now and then".

but do we really want to encourage more of that irresponsible
behavior? I
had 3 children. I would have liked to have had more. Why didn't
I?
Because I was aware that the level I wanted my kids to live at,
wouldn't be
possible if we had more. It was touch and go for a while there
even
so. Do
we really want to have a bunch of irresponsible people running
around having
kids and leaving it up to the rest of us to support them? I
don't
****ing
think so!

lol Marg, it's already happening.

Oh, helping out is fine by me.

Helping out is fine. Creating dependency and supporting
irresponsible
child-bearing is another matter.

Do you hold men who irresponsible impregnate to the same standard?


Pregnancy does not equal childbirth. In the US, no woman has to give
birth.


But fathers, in particular, don't
get a get out of being a parent card just for playing with sex.

I agree that no one gets a pass on their responsibility, but the
ongoing debate will always be over the fairness of the assignment
of
responsibility.

Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE
pregnant, you'll never have 100% fairness.

Neither men nor women can be legally forced to become or remain
pregnant.
If women are limited to exactly the same rights as men from
pre-conception throughout the lives of any children they have, it's
fair.
Is allowing women more rights than men somehow unfair to women?
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
newspGRg.263$UJ2.115@fed1read07...

"pandora" wrote in message
news:5LOdnS3W54HpaYvYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Phil" wrote in message
[snip]

You are talking out of both sides of your face. What you're saying
is
that her 'medical' condition is his business. In other posts you
whine
about privacy issues.

Her medical condition is none of his business. Her carrying his
child is
his business.

Pregnancy happens to be a medical condition.


See what I mean about talking out of both sides of their faces?
Phil #3

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:jsPRg.35745$E67.21561@clgrps13...
pandora wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

You are talking out of both sides of your face. What you're saying is
that her 'medical' condition is his business. In other posts you
whine
about privacy issues.


Her medical condition is none of his business. Her carrying his
child is
his business.

So what are you saying Marg, that pregnancy IS NOT a medical condition
? (Careful, you're on a very slippery slope with that one...)

...Ken

Correct... It's both. It IS if she wants to abort it, it ISN'T if she
wants to force him to pay her for breeding. It's one of those things
that only feminists understand.
Phil #3

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote
...............................
Again, the social CONTRACT is what it is
==
And where might one find this "social contract" written?
==
I tend to agree with that, so show me a FACT proving Gini et all is
female, and then...get me a beer.
==
I've been here as a woman since 1998. ;-) Can't figure out
why other women think you're a moron? ;-) Clue: I think it might
be because you're a moron. ;-)


Well, you haven't proven your a woman tho...so I guess I'm still
waiting for FACTS whilst you are still speculating.

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:jsPRg.35745$E67.21561@clgrps13...
pandora wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
nk.net...

You are talking out of both sides of your face. What you're saying is
that her 'medical' condition is his business. In other posts you
whine
about privacy issues.


Her medical condition is none of his business. Her carrying his
child is
his business.

So what are you saying Marg, that pregnancy IS NOT a medical condition
? (Careful, you're on a very slippery slope with that one...)

...Ken

Correct... It's both. It IS if she wants to abort it, it ISN'T if she
wants to force him to pay her for breeding. It's one of those things
that only feminists understand.

Indeed. Just the same as it's HER child when it comes to custody, yet it's
HIS child when it comes to paying her so-called "child support". Go
figure...........

Phil #3

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

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Moon Shyne wrote:

Well......... as long as it's only one gender that can actually BE
pregnant,
you'll never have 100% fairness.

Bull****..."fairness" is achieved quit easily. Simply apply the
predominant concept in Western jurisprudence to family law in exactly
the same way that it is applied in criminal, civil and labour law...that
predominant concept is "Natural Justice" which, paraphrased, says "no
individual can be held responsible for something over which they
had/have no control"

You must be a Clarence Thomas devotee. :-) He's stupid too. In any
event individuals are responsible all the time for outcomes that are
beyond their CURRENT control.

Uhuh. Just like if you didn't manufacture the gun, you could not have
wholesaled
it to the dealer, the dealer could not have sold it to the consumer, and the
burglar could not have stolen it and used it to kill someone. Therefore, Mr.
Manufacturer, YOU are responsible for the murder. The kneebone is connected
to the shin bone..............

Men, of course, have control over their
sperm and it is up to men when they DECIDE to give that up. Once they
have passed the burden onto someone else, they don't control it but are
still responsible for setting it in motion. And let's face it fellas,
women have NO DUTY to abort your little parasite.

Aren't you glad that your mother didn't abort you when YOU were a little
parasite?


In this case, since the woman has 100% of the power and authority over
the gestation process, she should "naturally" have 100% of the
responsibility for the consequences of her control of the process.

Once again, without the sperm the ova is not fertilized, and once men
pass that BURDEN onto women, they don't get to avoid consequences, just
because they don't control gestation. Doctors know that. Priests know
that, and yes....Virginia....JUDGES know that.
It's not quite the same as a Rube Goldberg cartoon here; we can follow
the harm back to the man's CHOICE to inseminate.

What this would mean is that the woman would have to *convince* the
man to
become/remain involved because she could not force him to be...

I can understand why you'd want that; it's the only way you would ever
get a woman to agree to stay with you. But, you'd have to rape and
impregnate her first, Ken.


...Ken

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:PJORg.27247$Lb5.15525@edtnps89...
Hyerdahl wrote:
Gini wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Hyerdahl" wrote
.................

The Constitutional interpretations give women equal rights to parent
children and equal rights to insist that men pay their share, much as
in any other case. If a debt is owed, or , in this case, a contract
met, women have the SAME RIGHTS men have to collect on those
contracts,
silly bling.

==
Cite?

Exactly what I was going to ask for. This one plays fast and loose
with
all her "claims" about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, but has
NEVER YET had a cite to prove her contentions. chuckle


Actually, it has already been interpreted that women have equal
contractual rights. If you don't think they do, then you prove they
don't. I can't believe you are so daft as to want me to prove women
have equal contractual rights. If they don't, that car dealership down
the street shouldn't sell to women, eh? :-)


Ah, but what has not yet been adequately examined is just *what* sort
of contract we're talking about. You're spin invariable ends up with a
contract form that favours women...regardless of how convoluted and
contradictory your "logic" must become to support such contentions.
It's certainly true that woman have equal "contractual" rights however
if we continue in the current bias of choosing contracts forms that
inherently favour women, it *cannot* also be said that MEN have equal
"contractual" rights...and that's the issue in this matter...

All you have to do is expose the root inconsistencies of her position, and
she scurries away. If one has false premises, what do
you suppose the resultant conclusion will be?


...Ken

"pandora" wrote in message
news:ht2dnYL3YOt994rYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:ObERg.1635$Bp3.143@trndny07...

"Hyerdahl" wrote
....................
There can't be MORE equal rights. Rights are either equal or they're
not. Women and men have the same right to marry, the same right to
divorce, the same right to their reproductive contributions, and the
same duties toward children. They have the same right to vote, own
property and work for equal pay. There's nothing women are demanding
that isn't the same rights men have.
==
Well, there is that nasty little *superior* rights in family court ;-).

What superior rights?

The right to his wallet among other things.

And for whom?

The woman.

None that I've heard of.

I've
yet to hear
a woman demanding equal rights to men there ;-). But, of course, I'm
sure
you will
start demanding equal rights for men in family court, right Hy? ;-)
No...never mind,
you stay on their side ;-).

What are couples doing in court in the first place? Isn't it about time
for
immature individuals to begin to cooperate and settle their differences
out
of the court system?

There's no difference being settled. "Family court" is nothing more than a
venue for the woman to extort the man's money. But you already knew that.

Just how much do you think that others care about your
petty squabbles?

Marg