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 |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Gini" wrote in message news:XsJNg.999$gN1.602@trndny08... "teachrmama" wrote "Gini"wrote in message "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. == Cite? Exactly what I was going to ask. I would like to know exactly when the Supreme Court considered all of this. == I'm sure she'll be right back with that :-) Oh, yeah, Mmmm-hmmmm...well, I'm not holding my breath. I don't look good in blue. chuckle |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message ... "Gini" ) writes: "teachrmama" wrote "Gini"wrote in message "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. == Cite? Exactly what I was going to ask. I would like to know exactly when the Supreme Court considered all of this. == I'm sure she'll be right back with that :-) Don't hold your breath... Several years ago, she cited a " study " that " proved " that men lie more than women. She has yet to produce the cite for it... Its in Manitoba, Africa, which is why she cannot find it now ! g Yep--and the check is in the mail. giggle |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.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. I think I missed the post where you gave us the cite, Hy. Could you please post it again? Thanks ever so much. |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Chris" wrote in message news:JpJNg.7989$Mz3.2503@fed1read07... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Correction: He is HELD 100% responsible whether or not he has control. IOW, Firestone no longer had "control" of the tires when Ford housed them in their warehouses, and show rooms, but were held jointly responsible. :-) No offense, but I think you're losing it. Maybe her tires are flat. |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "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? I actually think that if Big Daddy Gubmint stepped out of all but the most contentious cases, these things would work themselves out. Despite BDG's opinion to the contrary, the vast majority of adults are mature enough to handle the situation. And I do think that once the contentiousness was gone, we would see far fewer families splitting up. |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"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 invior Which home would be hostile? The mother's home or the father's home? |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "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. Pay attention, Moon. Sweet little Hy says that fathers who walk out on their children are not there to tend them. My question is--if the mother walks away with the children, the fathers are equally not there to tend them, but through no choice of their own. Does that still make the mother the one who should get custody? |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message news:mOSdneMTqaP6kJrYnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Pandora needs to do some thinking outside her box. Always a good way to start a debate. It shows your intelligence and logic. I find it interesting that, in the many years that I have been following these issues, there is one obvious danger signal in messages on various subjects from feminists. The danger signal is provided by any comments to the general effect that men need to grow up, stop being childish, act like "real men," etc. Such comments are supposed to be an adequate response to those who object to women exercising privileges, such as post-pregnancy reproductive choice, that are denied to men. If you are pregnant, you too can get an abortion. I always find it interesting that at the same time that some men claim they run they world, they still go begging to have society protect them because they are male and not female. Well, it won't work, Pandora. Here are the simple facts of the present situation in the U.S. (and, for all I know, in most other Western countries): (1) In respect of pre-conception reproductive choices, the two sexes have roughly equal rights. Various forms of contraception are available to both men and women (except, so far, a contraceptive pill for men), and both sexes have the option of abstinence. Correct. As well, there are vasectomies (which no men seem to want to mention). Maybe because it eliminates the ability to choose..... ya think? (2) In respect of post-conception reproductive choices, there is a huge disparity between the sexes -- Indeed. Men don't have a womb therefore they cannot gestate. Just one of those things that Nature deemed appropriate. and furthermore it's a disparity that is perfectly capable of being removed by legal changes. Possibly. Our laws can always be changed, but why would they be? What possible benefit would there be to that? Most people feel that what Nature put into effect, we don't have any reason to change by making laws. Tall people aren't cut off at the waist because short people are envious. Women have the post-conception choices of (a) allowing the pregnancy to proceed, and keeping the child; (b) having an abortion; (c) allowing the pregnancy to proceed, and giving the child up for adoption, a decision that -- for practical purposes -- they make unilaterally, if they are unmarried, since they are easily able to say that they don't know who the father is; and (d) increasingly, in many states, making use of newborn drop-off laws that allow mothers to leave the newborn at a range of locations, with no questions asked. By contrast, men have only one post-conception option -- to accept the woman's unilateral choice, and quite possibly being forced to spend 18+ years paying her "child support" for her choice. Indeed. (3) It would be perfectly possible for men to have the legal choice of renouncing their paternal rights and responsibilities. That would be the legal equivalent of giving men the same post-conception choice that feminists argue is so vital for women. (Of course, there's a very real question about whether it's morally right for women to have their current abortion rights, but that's another issue.) Abortion is totally irrelevant in your argument. It has always existed and some women have always taken the risks associated with having one. They also, alone, take the risks of gestating (but don't let that mess up your little rant). Having a child has never been an *equal* situation for women and men and it never will be. Of course, society *could*, if it wanted to, allow irresponsible men to skip on their merry way but why would it? Because most people feel that what nature put into effect, we don't have any reason to change by making laws? Most intelligent people (that's why the others are called idiots), realize that by doing so, they would be eradicating fatherhood completely. Hint: The government people have already eradicated fatherhood. Now, I personally, don't give a rat's ass if men get to father their kids. I figure that many of them are losers to begin with and they should be cut loose. However, society tends to look at the bigger picture. There is simply NO beneficial reason to allow men to walk out on their children. None. End of story. I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above claim. The stark clarity of the situation cannot be obscured by a smokescreen of accusations that men who object to this disparity are "childish boys," or that feminists who try to defend it are "adult." In reality, such accusations indicate nothing more than that their originator has not thought the issue through, or is just being disingenuous. Sorry, *boyo*, I've given this a great deal of thought and although *I* certainly don't care if men are allowed to be fathers or not, the majority of society does care and they aren't about to pass laws that allow men to abrogate their responsibilities to their progeny. So, my advice to you? Take your own precautions, watch yourself in the clinches, and if you become a father know that you WILL be charged with the responsibility of supporting YOUR child. Correction: you will be charged with the responsibility of handing free UNEARNED cash to some woman. VAST difference. In other words, suck it up fella. The above comment is a classic meaningless feminazi response. Marg "pandora" wrote in message newsKqdnb_yufuUWpnYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "pandora" wrote in message news:MLmdndGv2vBh4pnYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Phil" wrote in message nk.net... "pandora" wrote in message news:G_qdnUd9kp0Mz57YnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... Chris wrote: (edit) Translation: Any man who has sex with a woman must, for the next nine months, keep constant surveillance over her whereabouts (stalking, which I THOUGHT was illegal) so that he can mandatorily inform her of how she can get in touch with him. Actually, it's much simpler than that; if men are harmed by their inability to KNOW the status of their seed once it is passed on, perhaps they should refrain from passing it on to those with whom they share no bonded intimate relationship. Now see; that wasn't so hard, was it? Of course that would be the simpler solution to the problem. Will men do this? Time will tell. So far, they seem to be stuck in the past where they needn't worry about such things. Today, instead of changing their behavior to be responsible, they merely whine and cry and stamp their little feet. It's all SO unfair! Nature is a bitch. :-) Marg Typical feminazi BS. Just more "make men responsible for women's choices" bull****. You need to grow up. You need to learn to be responsible for the choices that YOU make, hon. I'm already responsible for the ones I make. We're waiting....... Marg Phil #3 You just don't get it. I get it just fine. The subject is that men are held responsible for women's choices in parenting Men are held responsible ONLY for the choices they make. Sorry that you cannot understand that simple fact. while women can, and often do, avoid any and all responsibility. Phil #3 I hardly believe that having an abortion OR gestating and giving birth is avoiding all responsibility for being pregnant. Childish boys may see it that way but adults understand. Marg |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Gini" wrote in message news:unLNg.3030$rc3.1105@trndny03... "Hyerdahl" wrote Chris wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote Gini wrote: ......................................... Well, is he 100% responsible or has he given up control? He is 100% responsible whether or not he has control. == And that make sense to you. Amusing. Well, it also makes sense to the Supreme Court, so I stand on good solid ground here. Care to quote just what the Supreme Court said that makes you believe so? The SC seems to support equal rights for women, in many cases, so they obviously would not be willing to give men special rights regarding support of their children. == LOL! Now there's legal authority for ya! I like it. To paraphrase - "The SC did some stuff I liked in the past so they will do more stuff I will like in the future." How can you argue with logic and legal citations like that? |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Ambiance ) blames others for it's MStakes:
On 13 Sep 2006 02:08:06 GMT, in article , Andre Lieven spewed forth.... Ambiance ) claims that women are non-sentient: On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:27:25 -0700, in article o8JNg.7988$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. No proof offered ? Cow**** fact free MSdirection claim fails. You know what I mean. As much as I appreciate the compliment that I can use telepathy to figure out your deeply poorly thought out and written posts, I must decline it. It will then be the responsibility of BOTH partners to prevent pregnancy.... that's my point, And, a poor one that it was. Poorly presented, and more poorly thought out, since it is NOT men's duties to safeguard women's bodily states. Unless, of course, YOU wish to claim that women are NON sentient beings. But, thats is NOT my point. I view women as being sentient adults, so suject to the *same and equal* responsibilities for their choices, actions, and consequences. idiot. Projection Your facts are un-coordinated, and garbled. My what? Spelling flames, the last refuge of the helpless. 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??? No, I " know " no such thing, in a time of legal abortion. DUH ! Nor does conception even result in a LEGAL obligation for a woman who chooses not to abort, as she, and only she, is allowed NON medical and NON biological means to void LEGAL parenthood: See " legal abandon laws " and " legal adopting out laws " Double DUH ! Yes, Feminists ARE that stoopid ! But, it is kind of them to show us their imbecility. laughs Andre |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |