Who has the ultimate right to choose?

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father. If you father a child, you should support that child.
It's not Free money, child support seldom if ever covers the cost of
raising a child.

CS is based on economic research done by highly regarded social
scientists.
CS is based on what thousands of parents in intact families actually
spend
on rearing their children. Do you have any evidence "child support
seldom
if ever covers the cost of raising children"? Are you suggesting the
social
scientists don't know how to track child rearing costs? Or perhaps the
parents who contribute to the child rearing research do not really know
how
much it costs to raise children? Or the government's consumer spending
research is inaccurate?

The custody parent needs to work, child care is not
cheap.

Child care is an add-on to CS based on actual costs. It is divided on a
pro-rata basis between the parents. I personally dislike this process
because it allows the CP mother to get very expensive child care and
stick
the NCP father with a high percentage of the inflated costs.

In Texas the child support is based on the non custodial parents
salary. 1/4 divided between the children. Many quit their jobs, and
have no income. The custodial parent is stuck.


Texas is a percent of NCP net income state. 25% of net is the CS guideline
for 2 children.

One child - 20%, Two children - 25%, Three children - 30%, Four children -
35%, Five children - 40%, Six+ children - Not less than five children.
These percentages are applied to the first $6,000 net per month. For net
incomes over $6,000 the courts have discretion to add different amounts,
without regard for the percentages, based on the needs of the children and
the resources available to the CP.

If an NCP "quits their job" the CS is calculated based on what they used to
make.


I know custodial fathers, and custodial mothers. Dead beat
mothers are very common. More so than dead beat fathers. Many deadbeat
fathers are in prison and can not pay any child support.
A man stupid enough to father a child with a woman that will not
stay with him has no sympathy with me. Many women take the kids and
flee from an abusive man. And you sound like abusive man.
But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

What should be done about the women who display no sense of
responsibility
by having unprotected sex with men? If women make a poor choice in
selecting boyfriends/husbands shouldn't they be held accountable for the
outcome and for exposing existing children to bad people?

According to PPP few woman have a second abortion, the first teach
them to be very careful about sex. The few exceptions are addict
whores. But crack babies are especially precious to those that love
suffering children.

My questions were about women and their personal responsibility to make good
choices in men and the affects of exposing their existing children to bad
people. Your response is about abortions. I just don't get the connection
other than avoiding answering some questions you choose to ignore.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father. If you father a child, you should support that child.
It's not Free money, child support seldom if ever covers the cost of
raising a child.

CS is based on economic research done by highly regarded social scientists.
CS is based on what thousands of parents in intact families actually spend
on rearing their children. Do you have any evidence "child support seldom
if ever covers the cost of raising children"? Are you suggesting the social
scientists don't know how to track child rearing costs? Or perhaps the
parents who contribute to the child rearing research do not really know how
much it costs to raise children? Or the government's consumer spending
research is inaccurate?

The custody parent needs to work, child care is not
cheap.

Child care is an add-on to CS based on actual costs. It is divided on a
pro-rata basis between the parents. I personally dislike this process
because it allows the CP mother to get very expensive child care and stick
the NCP father with a high percentage of the inflated costs.

In Texas the child support is based on the non custodial parents
salary. 1/4 divided between the children. Many quit their jobs, and
have no income. The custodial parent is stuck.

I know custodial fathers, and custodial mothers. Dead beat
mothers are very common. More so than dead beat fathers. Many deadbeat
fathers are in prison and can not pay any child support.
A man stupid enough to father a child with a woman that will not
stay with him has no sympathy with me. Many women take the kids and
flee from an abusive man. And you sound like abusive man.
But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

What should be done about the women who display no sense of responsibility
by having unprotected sex with men? If women make a poor choice in
selecting boyfriends/husbands shouldn't they be held accountable for the
outcome and for exposing existing children to bad people?

According to PPP few woman have a second abortion, the first teach
them to be very careful about sex. The few exceptions are addict
whores. But crack babies are especially precious to those that love
suffering children.

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

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

.....

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.


If you father a child, you should support that child.

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

"Robert" wrote
...................

I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.
==
If you've never been embarrassed by your own stupidity, now would be a great
time to start. So, how about answering the question--How long have you been
with this woman and how much money do you think her ex "owes" you?

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:02:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father. If you father a child, you should support that
child.
It's not Free money, child support seldom if ever covers the cost of
raising a child.

CS is based on economic research done by highly regarded social
scientists.
CS is based on what thousands of parents in intact families actually
spend
on rearing their children. Do you have any evidence "child support
seldom
if ever covers the cost of raising children"? Are you suggesting the
social
scientists don't know how to track child rearing costs? Or perhaps
the
parents who contribute to the child rearing research do not really
know
how
much it costs to raise children? Or the government's consumer
spending
research is inaccurate?

The custody parent needs to work, child care is not
cheap.

Child care is an add-on to CS based on actual costs. It is divided on
a
pro-rata basis between the parents. I personally dislike this process
because it allows the CP mother to get very expensive child care and
stick
the NCP father with a high percentage of the inflated costs.

In Texas the child support is based on the non custodial parents
salary. 1/4 divided between the children. Many quit their jobs, and
have no income. The custodial parent is stuck.


Texas is a percent of NCP net income state. 25% of net is the CS
guideline
for 2 children.

One child - 20%, Two children - 25%, Three children - 30%, Four
children -
35%, Five children - 40%, Six+ children - Not less than five children.
These percentages are applied to the first $6,000 net per month. For net
incomes over $6,000 the courts have discretion to add different amounts,
without regard for the percentages, based on the needs of the children
and
the resources available to the CP.

If an NCP "quits their job" the CS is calculated based on what they used
to
make.


I know custodial fathers, and custodial mothers. Dead beat
mothers are very common. More so than dead beat fathers. Many
deadbeat
fathers are in prison and can not pay any child support.
A man stupid enough to father a child with a woman that will not
stay with him has no sympathy with me. Many women take the kids and
flee from an abusive man. And you sound like abusive man.
But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman
bearing
all the responsibility.

What should be done about the women who display no sense of
responsibility
by having unprotected sex with men? If women make a poor choice in
selecting boyfriends/husbands shouldn't they be held accountable for
the
outcome and for exposing existing children to bad people?

According to PPP few woman have a second abortion, the first teach
them to be very careful about sex. The few exceptions are addict
whores. But crack babies are especially precious to those that love
suffering children.

My questions were about women and their personal responsibility to make
good
choices in men and the affects of exposing their existing children to bad
people. Your response is about abortions. I just don't get the
connection
other than avoiding answering some questions you choose to ignore.


I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

Ahem! You are the one who brought up child support as an issue and made a
bunch of stereotypical comments about men. What you posted about CS was BS.
What you posted about men ignored how women contribute to - gasp - causing
pregnancies.

If you are an expert on abortions, why don't you stick to that topic and
leave the CS and male bashing discussions out of it. What you posted about
CS was not factual. What you posted about men was nothing more than a
one-sided opinion.

Robert wrote:
(Paul Anderson)

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

And there is the final refuge of the idiot more committed to his
prejudices than to the truth.

--
Ray Fischer

Paul Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

....


You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.



If you father a child, you should support that child.


Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)


The same logic would apply to outlawing abortion, if you concieve a
child, you should gestate it, it has the same validity.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:02:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:32 -0700, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
.. .

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father. If you father a child, you should support that child.
It's not Free money, child support seldom if ever covers the cost of
raising a child.

CS is based on economic research done by highly regarded social
scientists.
CS is based on what thousands of parents in intact families actually
spend
on rearing their children. Do you have any evidence "child support
seldom
if ever covers the cost of raising children"? Are you suggesting the
social
scientists don't know how to track child rearing costs? Or perhaps the
parents who contribute to the child rearing research do not really know
how
much it costs to raise children? Or the government's consumer spending
research is inaccurate?

The custody parent needs to work, child care is not
cheap.

Child care is an add-on to CS based on actual costs. It is divided on a
pro-rata basis between the parents. I personally dislike this process
because it allows the CP mother to get very expensive child care and
stick
the NCP father with a high percentage of the inflated costs.

In Texas the child support is based on the non custodial parents
salary. 1/4 divided between the children. Many quit their jobs, and
have no income. The custodial parent is stuck.


Texas is a percent of NCP net income state. 25% of net is the CS guideline
for 2 children.

One child - 20%, Two children - 25%, Three children - 30%, Four children -
35%, Five children - 40%, Six+ children - Not less than five children.
These percentages are applied to the first $6,000 net per month. For net
incomes over $6,000 the courts have discretion to add different amounts,
without regard for the percentages, based on the needs of the children and
the resources available to the CP.

If an NCP "quits their job" the CS is calculated based on what they used to
make.


I know custodial fathers, and custodial mothers. Dead beat
mothers are very common. More so than dead beat fathers. Many deadbeat
fathers are in prison and can not pay any child support.
A man stupid enough to father a child with a woman that will not
stay with him has no sympathy with me. Many women take the kids and
flee from an abusive man. And you sound like abusive man.
But the
*******s that wants to enjoy unprotected sex, with the woman bearing
all the responsibility.

What should be done about the women who display no sense of
responsibility
by having unprotected sex with men? If women make a poor choice in
selecting boyfriends/husbands shouldn't they be held accountable for the
outcome and for exposing existing children to bad people?

According to PPP few woman have a second abortion, the first teach
them to be very careful about sex. The few exceptions are addict
whores. But crack babies are especially precious to those that love
suffering children.

My questions were about women and their personal responsibility to make good
choices in men and the affects of exposing their existing children to bad
people. Your response is about abortions. I just don't get the connection
other than avoiding answering some questions you choose to ignore.


I am reading and posting from talk.abortion. Apparently you are
posting from alt.child-support. And you are interested in getting out
of paying child support. Tough ****, you should have avoided fathering
a child. A sorry son of a bitch that wont support his children has no
sympathy from me.
As to answering your whining ass questions about sorry women, I
think you are getting off lightly.

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

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:45:27 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:23:02 -0700, Robert
wrote:

....

You are twisting it, it's now possible to prove that a man is or is
not the father.


If you father a child, you should support that child.

Why? In every other case we are only responsible for those debts we
have agreed to. Why should a man support a woman and her child that
he did not agree to support? What contract obligates this debt?
(Marriage is such a contract, so please don't go off on how married
men will not have rights to their children.)

Her child??? Yeah right, sorry mother ****ers, I hope your next
victim is spreading AIDS.

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

On Apr 15, 2:22 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

god, I hate you losers who got puked into this ng by crossposting
trollborts.

Teachersow, you sound like a dumb **** who married a deadbeat dad and
whines about how he's being "forced" to support his own children,
because that means he has less money to spend on you.

Like you didn't know about his prior obligations?

And don't you realize that he'll do the same to you someday?

People like you are why we need more abortions in the country.
ALL of you made the wrong choice on abortion.
You should not have bred children since you obviously didn't have the
interest or desire to adequately parent them.

My parent's generation understood the sacrifices needed, and made
them. I decided I didn't want to make those sacrifices, so I chose
not to breed. YOU chose to breed (and it is a choice now) and then
bail out on the needed sacrifices.

This is why I have no respect for breeders, and even less for breeders
who bail out on their choices.

You bred the kid, you support it, by whatever means necessary.

Stop demanding that "society" pay for your mistakes.

Teacher, that is only true in some States. In Illinois, it is not.

Not saying its right, but in Illinois, it's the law and therefore must
be followed.

I'm not talking about the law--I'm talking about right and wrong. Robert
keeps ranting about putting fathers into forced labor camps to make them
provide financial support.

At the very least. They were free to get vasectomies, use condoms, or
not have vaginal sex with the ****s dumb enough to **** them. I don't
understand why women are stupid enough to breed with most of the men
out there, but it proves women are as stupid as men.

(I'm pretty darn sure forced labor camps are not
the law in Illinois.) He never even mentions the father's right to parent
his own child.

Daddies are free to ask for custody, and they do get it when they
ask. Then he can get child support from the mother. Or they can do
"joint custody" which means that no one gets any support, and thus,
the kid has less resources available to him, but both parents are
involved.

However, JC works only with parents willing to be responsible adults,
and if they were that, they would stay married.

He jsut keeps ranting about the money. He also never
mentions the mother's responsibility to provide her 50% of the children's
needs.

Oh, I'd say doing the actual work with the kid is worth a lot more
than a couple hundred bucks a month.

He jsut keeps ranting about irresponsible men who do not shell out
the $$$$$. His point of view is unbalanced and unfair. He probably does
not realize that and assumes that everyone knows that children should be
with their fathers 50% of the time, and that mothers should provided 50% of
the money. I'm just giving him the opportunity to correct the terrible
misimpression he has made.- Hide quoted text -

Well, I say that people irresponsible enough not to do the work to
stay married probably should have their kids taken away altogether.

Stay married. Or don't breed. If you do, pay your ****ing CS since
so many American children are really in need.

Feh. I hate you stupid ass breeder****s and sperm donors.

Too bad we can't make abortion retroactive.