A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question for you Boby



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old July 24th 04, 04:03 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

Krista wrote:
First I want to say that this is the most succinct post I have ever read by
Bob and I enjoyed reading about his views without the usual rancor. You are
very logical when you choose to state your opinions sans rage, Bob, and it
was a pleasure responding to your post (albeit belatedly).


That left handed insult does not fly. Your opinion of "rage" is your
opinion.




Bob wrote:

Rowanyx19 wrote:

Im sure Ill regret this but Im really curious.
Boby all Ive read so far from you is everything you dont agree with.
Honestly Id like to know what you think is the"right" way things should


be done

if a man and a woman have a child together and part ways one way or


another?

Tracy


To start with you can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more
effectively. Two people making a child together have an obligation to
stay together at least until the child is grown. That's what marriage
is all about, and two people ought not make a child together unless they
have considered very carefully and committed to stay together to raise
the child. The current abomination of single mothers is child abuse,
and that's all that it is. Shame on them all.



Okay, I have a question. A woman is on the rebound from a broken
engagement. She meets a guy and they start seeing each other. She has
been on birth control for six months and takes it absolutely according to
the
directions, never wavering, taking it at within minutes of the exact same
time every day.

After dating for 2 months, they have consensual sex with no other form of
protection. She finds out three weeks later that she is pregnant. Neither
she nor her partner believe abortion is the right choice, and adoption is
never mentioned by either.


1. That "accident" lie is just a lie 99% of the time, and the other 1%
is highly suspicious. I don't believe that.

2. If they are that moral about abortions, they ought to be that moral
about ****ing. If they are amoral about ****ing, they ought to now be
responsible, and not moral, about dealing with the consequences.



He asks her to marry him. She tells him she doesn't want to get married
just to "do the right thing." What should they do? If I'm reading you
correctly,
you feel they should marry,


In a real sense they are married, they have joined together biologically
to create a family.

regardless of whether they are ill-suited to a
long-term relationship with each other or not.


A mutual child IS a long term relationship, a life long relationship.
They already crossed that bridge. They no longer have that option.


I agree they shouldn't have
had
sex. The fact is that they DID have sex and they ARE pregnant. They chose,
TOGETHER, not to abort and didn't discuss relinquishment. So, now
what? They should compound their mistake by getting married (another
mistake if it is done for the wrong reasons)?


People who choose to create a child together have formed a life long
bond (and family) whether they thought much about it or not. Now they
have a responsibility to the child.


When a divorce can't be avoided the divorce court has no business
assigning "custody" to either parent because to do so violates the
CHILD'S basic human right to BOTH of his/her parents. The CHILD is not
getting divorced from either parent. Any decision that assigns custody
VIOLATES the child's human rights and hurts the child. Judges LIE daily.


I agree. And what if one of the parents doesn't WANT to share custody?
This person doesn't want to share, they don't want full custody, they want
the child only on their terms, only when it doesn't inconvenience them?


A child just about always inconveniences the parents. When you make a
child you have responsibilities. The child is NOT getting divorced from
either parent, so no custody decision ought be made. Any custody
decision violates the CHILD's fundamental rights.


A possible exception is in the rare cases when one parent has been
CONVICTED of CRIMINAL child abuse. Even that is questionable because
there are so very many false accusations of child abuse all the time.
Any accusations of "DV" or "child abuse" filed concurrently with a
divorce petition ought be given extreme skepticism because of the
preponderance of lies commonly told during such time.



If they have been CONVICTED of criminal child abuse, it wouldn't be from
false accusations made in a divorce court. I won't say it couldn't be a
false claim, because I know people who've been convicted on false claims,
just not in divorce court. True, the lie can do damage, if brought up in
divorce court, that is not the same a conviction, though. I agree that all
such claims made in divorce court with no prior record of such ought to be
viewed in the most suspicious light only.


Filing false accusations has gotten to be so commonly advocated by
divorce lawyers that none of the accusations filed at the time of a
divorce can be believed. They ought to be summarily rejected.


I know a woman (the ex of a friend of mine) who got supervised visitation
forced on her child's father because she swore he sexually abused their
daughter, when in fact, it was HER MOTHER (the child's g'ma) who did the
abusing! Luckily, the child was old enough to tell and pointed the finger
at Granny and her daddy only ended up paying for one supervised visitation
session.


Supervised visits are an abomination. The court, the supervisor, and
the other parent are CRIMINAL child abusers in such cases.


But her mom still got it stipulated that the girl couldn't spend
the night with her dad, which cause him to have to ride the bus 2 hours
round trip to pick her up each morning of his visitation and 2 hours round
trip at night to drop her off. That was definitely a screwed up situation.
To top the whole thing off, the woman got married to get pregnant so she
could get discharged from the military, then dumped the guy so she could
have her girlfriend move in. She was "always gay" just married my friend to
"try to do what was expected." Bitch.


Women like that deserve the Laci Peterson treatment. There is no other
way to render justice or to protect the child.


The person who leaves the family, or breaks up the family by filing for
divorce, ought not be allowed to take any of the family income or
assets, and should not be privileged to to take the children. The
parent who chooses to try to keep the family together should be entitled
to the family home and other assets. Generally a child is much better
off in a home with two parents even when they fight a lot, and many
studies have demonstrated that. Divorce ought to be the last resort,
not just because the mother "doesn't feel like a wife" or "wants to find
myself" or "dosen't love him any more," or any similar common excuse.


I disagree, but then, you knew that already. What if neither person wants
to "keep it together"? What if they mutually decide to divorce? Someone
has to file or else they're just living married but separate and that's
can't be good either.


What if pigs grow wings and fly away?

Until someone files the divorce they are still married.


For instance, my ex threatened me if I wouldn't do what he wanted at that
moment, then he wanted a divorce. All I did was agree with him and move
out. We filed the papers together.


You moved out, and I bet you actually filed the papers, though you might
have convinced him to sign the petition.

A good friend of Bob's was still living with and sleeping with his ex
for some weeks after she filed and was granted the divorce.


Both parents have 100% concurrent responsibility to support the child.
The person with whom the child is living is 100% responsible regardles
of the other parent's responsibilty. If she (or he) can not support the
child she (or occasionally he) needs to take the child to the other
parent and ask the other parent to support the child. In most cases the
parent supporting the child will have the family home and assets to work
with.



What if the other parent doesn't WANT the child full-time?


Irrelevant. What if pigs fly?


I moved out of
our apartment, he got the car (which was mine before the marriage), and the
entire contents of the apartment, but he didn't want the child. You see,
she was an infant and he didn't want to deal with her.


Infants generally need mommy every few hours for obvious reasons. Older
children don't. Psychologically, a lot of data shows that children who
don't have fathers coming between them and mommy often have life long
psychological problems. It has to do with differentiation of "self."
There has been quite a bit of work on this topic published recently.


Hell, he didn't want
to deal with her when we were both living with him, *I* was expected to do
all the parenting, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. Even things he agreed
to do when we first moved in together he decided were my sole
responsibility.


An old Chinese saying:
If someone does your job once, you thank him for the help.
If someone does your job a second time, you don't need to thank him for
doing what is now his job.

You took over the jobs. Don't go blaming him.

BTW: Much of the time he's busy doing all the "his" jobs that women
won't ever do and always expect him to to 100%, while concurrently
wanting him to do half of "her" jobs. Life doesn't usually work out
very well under those assumptions.


All he felt he should have to do was bring in the money, come home from work
and sit on his fat ass all evening and all weekend playing with his video
games and his computer. Oh yes, and if I was using one of those items and
he decided he wanted to use it, he just came over and unplugged my game, or
changed the channel on the TV or told me to get off the computer. Because,
you know, HE brought home the paycheck so whatever he wanted, whenever he
wanted it was his right and what I wanted didn't matter. Anyway, that's
beside the point. He didn't want her, and he still doesn't. The question
stands... What if the other parent doesn't want the child full-time? Or
even 50-50? Or 70-30? Or even, 90-10? In our case, the split works out to
94-6.


Yada, yada, yada. When divorced women tell it, he was a total loser and
she was a saint. I suspect that his story would be quite different.

What isn't wanted today is often wanted tomorrow. The child owns both
parents.


For a million years or longer the mother would take the child to the
father, or keep the child together with the father for support if she
was unable to support the child herself. Taking a child away from
his/her father generally deprives the child of a better life and the
father's teaching. Fathering is different from mothering and every
child needs both.


For a long time (before the industrial revolution) children were seen as an
asset. Children were "useful" on the farm and in the fields, etc. With the
industrial revolution came jobs for men only and therefore children were
seen as an asset no longer, but a burden. THAT'S when the tide shifted.
And it wasn't because women WANTED the children, it's because MEN DIDN'T.


Uh, no. The industrial revolution generally took men away from our
families and sacrificed men for the "good" of others. Men were forced
out of their homes to do hard, dirty, dangerous labor while the woman
stayed home with the family. It's not becasue men wanted to go away, but
were not allowed economically to stay with their families.

Your assumptions have the cart before the horse.


Read a history book sometime. They aren't all written by feminists.


Yours obviously were.


In
fact, all the ones I saw in high school were written by rich, white MEN.


LOL. That feminist hate rant doesn't add to a polite conversation.


I agree with you in that fathering and mothering are different and every
child needs both. I don't think every child needs their BIOLOGICAL father
or mother, because, having relinquished a child, that would be like saying
my first daughter was getting substandard parenting because she isn't with
either of her bio parents.


Yes, she's getting substandard parenting and has a much higher
probability of all the bad things and lower probability of success in
life.


My husband has always and will always treat my
daughter the same as he treats our son.


Nonsense. Step parents do not have the biological tie to the step kid,
and even with the best intentions, blood is thicker than water. Go read
Cinderella again.

She just also gets the benefit of
another daddy and mama (my ex's new fiancée) as well.


Your feminist fiction books are showing again.


Often children, given a chance, will choose to live with one parent for
a while, and then with the other for a while. In some countries they
beleive that children generally favor their mother until about age 7,
after which they should be with their father.



I disagree. I agree that children should have the choice, though. I
disagree in that I believe children will choose to live where they feel "at
home." If that is with mom, or dad. In my case, I believe my daughter
would continue to live with me and my husband because 1) she has a brother
who she loves, is very close to, and is protective of here, 2) we are
consistent in our parenting, we believe in boundaries and limits, etc, and
3) at my ex's she is allowed to do whatever she wants (even at age 4) and I
doubt he could keep that up long-term, it only works because she's with him
such a short time. So she'd soon find out that everything's NOT hunky-dory
at daddy's house and want to come back home, IF she ever even wanted to try
living with him.


Your opinion doesn't hold much water. In all the broken families that I
have known of, the children who had the chance went to live with the
other parent for some periods of time. Sometimes they abandoned mom
entirely in their teenage years. At age 4 you can not begin to guess
how she will feel at 12. Talk to the parents of a teenage girl
sometime. It's enough to scare any parent.


Again there is no "right" way to do wrong. There are only less harmful
ways if the mother (95%), or occasionally the father (5%), is intent on
doing wrong to the child.


I cannot agree that getting a divorce is NEVER the right thing to do for a
child. I will concur that there are more ideal ways to resolve the
situation, though. There will always be marriages that are more unhealthy
to stay in than to leave, for the children as well as the mother.



Generally a marriage is better for the children than divorce, even if
the parents fight a lot. There is plenty of studies out there if you
want to do some research. Divorced parents often claim that their
choice was "for the children" but that's projection. IOW: I don't
believe you.


I myself have a friend whose father should long ago have been jailed for
what he put them through. He never laid a hand on his daughter, but beat
his wife, and did a number on my friend psychologically, in addition to
which he starved her (my friend, the daughter) because she was "too fat" in
his opinion. THAT mother definitely should have divorced that man, don't
you think? Would that not have been healthier for both my friend and her
mother? I got this story from my friend, BTW, not her mom. And she's
happily married, so I don't think she has anything against males in general,
just her father.
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin



Yada, yada, yada. Divorced women tell so many stories about "I was
abused" that it's not believable. They are going to say that regardless
of the actual facts.

And what does "did a number...psychologically" mean? Sorry, toots, but
that CRAP doesn't hold water.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/



  #142  
Old July 24th 04, 04:03 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

Krista wrote:
First I want to say that this is the most succinct post I have ever read by
Bob and I enjoyed reading about his views without the usual rancor. You are
very logical when you choose to state your opinions sans rage, Bob, and it
was a pleasure responding to your post (albeit belatedly).


That left handed insult does not fly. Your opinion of "rage" is your
opinion.




Bob wrote:

Rowanyx19 wrote:

Im sure Ill regret this but Im really curious.
Boby all Ive read so far from you is everything you dont agree with.
Honestly Id like to know what you think is the"right" way things should


be done

if a man and a woman have a child together and part ways one way or


another?

Tracy


To start with you can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more
effectively. Two people making a child together have an obligation to
stay together at least until the child is grown. That's what marriage
is all about, and two people ought not make a child together unless they
have considered very carefully and committed to stay together to raise
the child. The current abomination of single mothers is child abuse,
and that's all that it is. Shame on them all.



Okay, I have a question. A woman is on the rebound from a broken
engagement. She meets a guy and they start seeing each other. She has
been on birth control for six months and takes it absolutely according to
the
directions, never wavering, taking it at within minutes of the exact same
time every day.

After dating for 2 months, they have consensual sex with no other form of
protection. She finds out three weeks later that she is pregnant. Neither
she nor her partner believe abortion is the right choice, and adoption is
never mentioned by either.


1. That "accident" lie is just a lie 99% of the time, and the other 1%
is highly suspicious. I don't believe that.

2. If they are that moral about abortions, they ought to be that moral
about ****ing. If they are amoral about ****ing, they ought to now be
responsible, and not moral, about dealing with the consequences.



He asks her to marry him. She tells him she doesn't want to get married
just to "do the right thing." What should they do? If I'm reading you
correctly,
you feel they should marry,


In a real sense they are married, they have joined together biologically
to create a family.

regardless of whether they are ill-suited to a
long-term relationship with each other or not.


A mutual child IS a long term relationship, a life long relationship.
They already crossed that bridge. They no longer have that option.


I agree they shouldn't have
had
sex. The fact is that they DID have sex and they ARE pregnant. They chose,
TOGETHER, not to abort and didn't discuss relinquishment. So, now
what? They should compound their mistake by getting married (another
mistake if it is done for the wrong reasons)?


People who choose to create a child together have formed a life long
bond (and family) whether they thought much about it or not. Now they
have a responsibility to the child.


When a divorce can't be avoided the divorce court has no business
assigning "custody" to either parent because to do so violates the
CHILD'S basic human right to BOTH of his/her parents. The CHILD is not
getting divorced from either parent. Any decision that assigns custody
VIOLATES the child's human rights and hurts the child. Judges LIE daily.


I agree. And what if one of the parents doesn't WANT to share custody?
This person doesn't want to share, they don't want full custody, they want
the child only on their terms, only when it doesn't inconvenience them?


A child just about always inconveniences the parents. When you make a
child you have responsibilities. The child is NOT getting divorced from
either parent, so no custody decision ought be made. Any custody
decision violates the CHILD's fundamental rights.


A possible exception is in the rare cases when one parent has been
CONVICTED of CRIMINAL child abuse. Even that is questionable because
there are so very many false accusations of child abuse all the time.
Any accusations of "DV" or "child abuse" filed concurrently with a
divorce petition ought be given extreme skepticism because of the
preponderance of lies commonly told during such time.



If they have been CONVICTED of criminal child abuse, it wouldn't be from
false accusations made in a divorce court. I won't say it couldn't be a
false claim, because I know people who've been convicted on false claims,
just not in divorce court. True, the lie can do damage, if brought up in
divorce court, that is not the same a conviction, though. I agree that all
such claims made in divorce court with no prior record of such ought to be
viewed in the most suspicious light only.


Filing false accusations has gotten to be so commonly advocated by
divorce lawyers that none of the accusations filed at the time of a
divorce can be believed. They ought to be summarily rejected.


I know a woman (the ex of a friend of mine) who got supervised visitation
forced on her child's father because she swore he sexually abused their
daughter, when in fact, it was HER MOTHER (the child's g'ma) who did the
abusing! Luckily, the child was old enough to tell and pointed the finger
at Granny and her daddy only ended up paying for one supervised visitation
session.


Supervised visits are an abomination. The court, the supervisor, and
the other parent are CRIMINAL child abusers in such cases.


But her mom still got it stipulated that the girl couldn't spend
the night with her dad, which cause him to have to ride the bus 2 hours
round trip to pick her up each morning of his visitation and 2 hours round
trip at night to drop her off. That was definitely a screwed up situation.
To top the whole thing off, the woman got married to get pregnant so she
could get discharged from the military, then dumped the guy so she could
have her girlfriend move in. She was "always gay" just married my friend to
"try to do what was expected." Bitch.


Women like that deserve the Laci Peterson treatment. There is no other
way to render justice or to protect the child.


The person who leaves the family, or breaks up the family by filing for
divorce, ought not be allowed to take any of the family income or
assets, and should not be privileged to to take the children. The
parent who chooses to try to keep the family together should be entitled
to the family home and other assets. Generally a child is much better
off in a home with two parents even when they fight a lot, and many
studies have demonstrated that. Divorce ought to be the last resort,
not just because the mother "doesn't feel like a wife" or "wants to find
myself" or "dosen't love him any more," or any similar common excuse.


I disagree, but then, you knew that already. What if neither person wants
to "keep it together"? What if they mutually decide to divorce? Someone
has to file or else they're just living married but separate and that's
can't be good either.


What if pigs grow wings and fly away?

Until someone files the divorce they are still married.


For instance, my ex threatened me if I wouldn't do what he wanted at that
moment, then he wanted a divorce. All I did was agree with him and move
out. We filed the papers together.


You moved out, and I bet you actually filed the papers, though you might
have convinced him to sign the petition.

A good friend of Bob's was still living with and sleeping with his ex
for some weeks after she filed and was granted the divorce.


Both parents have 100% concurrent responsibility to support the child.
The person with whom the child is living is 100% responsible regardles
of the other parent's responsibilty. If she (or he) can not support the
child she (or occasionally he) needs to take the child to the other
parent and ask the other parent to support the child. In most cases the
parent supporting the child will have the family home and assets to work
with.



What if the other parent doesn't WANT the child full-time?


Irrelevant. What if pigs fly?


I moved out of
our apartment, he got the car (which was mine before the marriage), and the
entire contents of the apartment, but he didn't want the child. You see,
she was an infant and he didn't want to deal with her.


Infants generally need mommy every few hours for obvious reasons. Older
children don't. Psychologically, a lot of data shows that children who
don't have fathers coming between them and mommy often have life long
psychological problems. It has to do with differentiation of "self."
There has been quite a bit of work on this topic published recently.


Hell, he didn't want
to deal with her when we were both living with him, *I* was expected to do
all the parenting, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. Even things he agreed
to do when we first moved in together he decided were my sole
responsibility.


An old Chinese saying:
If someone does your job once, you thank him for the help.
If someone does your job a second time, you don't need to thank him for
doing what is now his job.

You took over the jobs. Don't go blaming him.

BTW: Much of the time he's busy doing all the "his" jobs that women
won't ever do and always expect him to to 100%, while concurrently
wanting him to do half of "her" jobs. Life doesn't usually work out
very well under those assumptions.


All he felt he should have to do was bring in the money, come home from work
and sit on his fat ass all evening and all weekend playing with his video
games and his computer. Oh yes, and if I was using one of those items and
he decided he wanted to use it, he just came over and unplugged my game, or
changed the channel on the TV or told me to get off the computer. Because,
you know, HE brought home the paycheck so whatever he wanted, whenever he
wanted it was his right and what I wanted didn't matter. Anyway, that's
beside the point. He didn't want her, and he still doesn't. The question
stands... What if the other parent doesn't want the child full-time? Or
even 50-50? Or 70-30? Or even, 90-10? In our case, the split works out to
94-6.


Yada, yada, yada. When divorced women tell it, he was a total loser and
she was a saint. I suspect that his story would be quite different.

What isn't wanted today is often wanted tomorrow. The child owns both
parents.


For a million years or longer the mother would take the child to the
father, or keep the child together with the father for support if she
was unable to support the child herself. Taking a child away from
his/her father generally deprives the child of a better life and the
father's teaching. Fathering is different from mothering and every
child needs both.


For a long time (before the industrial revolution) children were seen as an
asset. Children were "useful" on the farm and in the fields, etc. With the
industrial revolution came jobs for men only and therefore children were
seen as an asset no longer, but a burden. THAT'S when the tide shifted.
And it wasn't because women WANTED the children, it's because MEN DIDN'T.


Uh, no. The industrial revolution generally took men away from our
families and sacrificed men for the "good" of others. Men were forced
out of their homes to do hard, dirty, dangerous labor while the woman
stayed home with the family. It's not becasue men wanted to go away, but
were not allowed economically to stay with their families.

Your assumptions have the cart before the horse.


Read a history book sometime. They aren't all written by feminists.


Yours obviously were.


In
fact, all the ones I saw in high school were written by rich, white MEN.


LOL. That feminist hate rant doesn't add to a polite conversation.


I agree with you in that fathering and mothering are different and every
child needs both. I don't think every child needs their BIOLOGICAL father
or mother, because, having relinquished a child, that would be like saying
my first daughter was getting substandard parenting because she isn't with
either of her bio parents.


Yes, she's getting substandard parenting and has a much higher
probability of all the bad things and lower probability of success in
life.


My husband has always and will always treat my
daughter the same as he treats our son.


Nonsense. Step parents do not have the biological tie to the step kid,
and even with the best intentions, blood is thicker than water. Go read
Cinderella again.

She just also gets the benefit of
another daddy and mama (my ex's new fiancée) as well.


Your feminist fiction books are showing again.


Often children, given a chance, will choose to live with one parent for
a while, and then with the other for a while. In some countries they
beleive that children generally favor their mother until about age 7,
after which they should be with their father.



I disagree. I agree that children should have the choice, though. I
disagree in that I believe children will choose to live where they feel "at
home." If that is with mom, or dad. In my case, I believe my daughter
would continue to live with me and my husband because 1) she has a brother
who she loves, is very close to, and is protective of here, 2) we are
consistent in our parenting, we believe in boundaries and limits, etc, and
3) at my ex's she is allowed to do whatever she wants (even at age 4) and I
doubt he could keep that up long-term, it only works because she's with him
such a short time. So she'd soon find out that everything's NOT hunky-dory
at daddy's house and want to come back home, IF she ever even wanted to try
living with him.


Your opinion doesn't hold much water. In all the broken families that I
have known of, the children who had the chance went to live with the
other parent for some periods of time. Sometimes they abandoned mom
entirely in their teenage years. At age 4 you can not begin to guess
how she will feel at 12. Talk to the parents of a teenage girl
sometime. It's enough to scare any parent.


Again there is no "right" way to do wrong. There are only less harmful
ways if the mother (95%), or occasionally the father (5%), is intent on
doing wrong to the child.


I cannot agree that getting a divorce is NEVER the right thing to do for a
child. I will concur that there are more ideal ways to resolve the
situation, though. There will always be marriages that are more unhealthy
to stay in than to leave, for the children as well as the mother.



Generally a marriage is better for the children than divorce, even if
the parents fight a lot. There is plenty of studies out there if you
want to do some research. Divorced parents often claim that their
choice was "for the children" but that's projection. IOW: I don't
believe you.


I myself have a friend whose father should long ago have been jailed for
what he put them through. He never laid a hand on his daughter, but beat
his wife, and did a number on my friend psychologically, in addition to
which he starved her (my friend, the daughter) because she was "too fat" in
his opinion. THAT mother definitely should have divorced that man, don't
you think? Would that not have been healthier for both my friend and her
mother? I got this story from my friend, BTW, not her mom. And she's
happily married, so I don't think she has anything against males in general,
just her father.
Krista
Mother of three
Student of Psychology and Latin



Yada, yada, yada. Divorced women tell so many stories about "I was
abused" that it's not believable. They are going to say that regardless
of the actual facts.

And what does "did a number...psychologically" mean? Sorry, toots, but
that CRAP doesn't hold water.

Bob

--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/



  #143  
Old July 24th 04, 04:47 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

Kenneth S. wrote:
Bob can answer for himself. However, I have three comments on Krista's
extremely long message below:

(1) It's usually not too difficult to try to obscure relatively simple rules
of human conduct by postulating some weird situation where application of
the rules would appear to produce an unfair situation. I have little
respect for most lawyers, but they have a saying that is relevant here.
"Hard cases make bad law," they say, meaning that you can't adjust the
generalities of the law to make it fit some very unusual situation that
seems unfair. The same principle applies to non-legal rules of human
conduct. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for reforming the custody
situation in the U.S., and the continuing glass ceiling on paternal custody,
by saying things like "what if the father is an ax-murderer?"

(2) Women in the U.S. have demanded, and been given, a wide range of
post-conception reproductive rights that are denied to men. That means that
unmarried women unilaterally make the decision about whether a pregnancy
proceeds to childbirth. The logical outcome of that situation is that
women -- and women alone -- should bear the consequences of their own
decisions. That logical outcome DOESN'T happen for one simple reason: the
state of the law in the U.S. reflects, not logic, but the fact that there is
no effective political group to protect the rights of men when the interests
of the two sexes are in conflict. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for
saying that unmarried men shouldn't be forced to pay child support by saying
things like "what if the mother and the father have objections to the mother
exercising the post-conception reproductive rights that the woman has been
given?"

(3) The U.S. is the divorce capital of the world, and the U.S. divorce rate
is about 50 percent. Do 50 percent of all U.S. marriages HAVE to end up in
divorce? Were all those divorces justified by the conduct of the marriage
partners? If the answer to those two questions is no (and that's certainly
my answer), then you have to ask about the ease with which people can get
divorces, as well as the incentives for one or other spouse to initiate
divorces. As is now fortunately becoming more widely known, most couples
don't make joint decisions to divorce. In most cases, the wife imposes the
divorce on her husband. So if we want to cut the divorce rate we need to
re-examine the incentives given wives to divorce their husbands. One
incentive is a virtual guarantee of custody of the children, plus being able
to force their exes to pay them large amounts of tax-free money, via
so-called "child support." Another is community property laws that split
assets evenly, regardless of which spouse's labors created those assets.



Right on Ken. Unfair laws that pay women to divorce husbands and
destroy families is a major factor in the obscene number of children
being raised in situations where they are deprived of their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/



  #144  
Old July 24th 04, 04:47 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

Kenneth S. wrote:
Bob can answer for himself. However, I have three comments on Krista's
extremely long message below:

(1) It's usually not too difficult to try to obscure relatively simple rules
of human conduct by postulating some weird situation where application of
the rules would appear to produce an unfair situation. I have little
respect for most lawyers, but they have a saying that is relevant here.
"Hard cases make bad law," they say, meaning that you can't adjust the
generalities of the law to make it fit some very unusual situation that
seems unfair. The same principle applies to non-legal rules of human
conduct. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for reforming the custody
situation in the U.S., and the continuing glass ceiling on paternal custody,
by saying things like "what if the father is an ax-murderer?"

(2) Women in the U.S. have demanded, and been given, a wide range of
post-conception reproductive rights that are denied to men. That means that
unmarried women unilaterally make the decision about whether a pregnancy
proceeds to childbirth. The logical outcome of that situation is that
women -- and women alone -- should bear the consequences of their own
decisions. That logical outcome DOESN'T happen for one simple reason: the
state of the law in the U.S. reflects, not logic, but the fact that there is
no effective political group to protect the rights of men when the interests
of the two sexes are in conflict. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for
saying that unmarried men shouldn't be forced to pay child support by saying
things like "what if the mother and the father have objections to the mother
exercising the post-conception reproductive rights that the woman has been
given?"

(3) The U.S. is the divorce capital of the world, and the U.S. divorce rate
is about 50 percent. Do 50 percent of all U.S. marriages HAVE to end up in
divorce? Were all those divorces justified by the conduct of the marriage
partners? If the answer to those two questions is no (and that's certainly
my answer), then you have to ask about the ease with which people can get
divorces, as well as the incentives for one or other spouse to initiate
divorces. As is now fortunately becoming more widely known, most couples
don't make joint decisions to divorce. In most cases, the wife imposes the
divorce on her husband. So if we want to cut the divorce rate we need to
re-examine the incentives given wives to divorce their husbands. One
incentive is a virtual guarantee of custody of the children, plus being able
to force their exes to pay them large amounts of tax-free money, via
so-called "child support." Another is community property laws that split
assets evenly, regardless of which spouse's labors created those assets.



Right on Ken. Unfair laws that pay women to divorce husbands and
destroy families is a major factor in the obscene number of children
being raised in situations where they are deprived of their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/



  #145  
Old July 24th 04, 04:47 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

Kenneth S. wrote:
Bob can answer for himself. However, I have three comments on Krista's
extremely long message below:

(1) It's usually not too difficult to try to obscure relatively simple rules
of human conduct by postulating some weird situation where application of
the rules would appear to produce an unfair situation. I have little
respect for most lawyers, but they have a saying that is relevant here.
"Hard cases make bad law," they say, meaning that you can't adjust the
generalities of the law to make it fit some very unusual situation that
seems unfair. The same principle applies to non-legal rules of human
conduct. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for reforming the custody
situation in the U.S., and the continuing glass ceiling on paternal custody,
by saying things like "what if the father is an ax-murderer?"

(2) Women in the U.S. have demanded, and been given, a wide range of
post-conception reproductive rights that are denied to men. That means that
unmarried women unilaterally make the decision about whether a pregnancy
proceeds to childbirth. The logical outcome of that situation is that
women -- and women alone -- should bear the consequences of their own
decisions. That logical outcome DOESN'T happen for one simple reason: the
state of the law in the U.S. reflects, not logic, but the fact that there is
no effective political group to protect the rights of men when the interests
of the two sexes are in conflict. Bottom line: you don't refute the case for
saying that unmarried men shouldn't be forced to pay child support by saying
things like "what if the mother and the father have objections to the mother
exercising the post-conception reproductive rights that the woman has been
given?"

(3) The U.S. is the divorce capital of the world, and the U.S. divorce rate
is about 50 percent. Do 50 percent of all U.S. marriages HAVE to end up in
divorce? Were all those divorces justified by the conduct of the marriage
partners? If the answer to those two questions is no (and that's certainly
my answer), then you have to ask about the ease with which people can get
divorces, as well as the incentives for one or other spouse to initiate
divorces. As is now fortunately becoming more widely known, most couples
don't make joint decisions to divorce. In most cases, the wife imposes the
divorce on her husband. So if we want to cut the divorce rate we need to
re-examine the incentives given wives to divorce their husbands. One
incentive is a virtual guarantee of custody of the children, plus being able
to force their exes to pay them large amounts of tax-free money, via
so-called "child support." Another is community property laws that split
assets evenly, regardless of which spouse's labors created those assets.



Right on Ken. Unfair laws that pay women to divorce husbands and
destroy families is a major factor in the obscene number of children
being raised in situations where they are deprived of their fathers.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/



  #146  
Old July 24th 04, 10:22 PM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

In article , Bob says...
...........................

People who choose to create a child together have formed a life long
bond (and family) whether they thought much about it or not. Now they
have a responsibility to the child.

=====
But, Bob-Bob--You have told us repeatedly that the child is *HER* child--*HER*
responsibility. Have you changed your position on this?
=====
=====

  #147  
Old July 24th 04, 10:22 PM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

In article , Bob says...
...........................

People who choose to create a child together have formed a life long
bond (and family) whether they thought much about it or not. Now they
have a responsibility to the child.

=====
But, Bob-Bob--You have told us repeatedly that the child is *HER* child--*HER*
responsibility. Have you changed your position on this?
=====
=====

  #148  
Old July 24th 04, 10:22 PM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question for you Boby

In article , Bob says...
...........................

People who choose to create a child together have formed a life long
bond (and family) whether they thought much about it or not. Now they
have a responsibility to the child.

=====
But, Bob-Bob--You have told us repeatedly that the child is *HER* child--*HER*
responsibility. Have you changed your position on this?
=====
=====

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.