Hey ladies, guess what?

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/10712...d-support-deal


According to this judge, you're incompetent to engage in business deals
for the benefit of your children. How's that for feminism for ya?
And if you don't think that way: ask yourself this. She signed the
deal, and he signed the deal, but she's still getting cash for it.
Clearly the judge thought there was no ill intent. In other words, she
was stupid, not criminal...A Democrat, in short.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:55:43 -0700, John Meyer
wrote:

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/10712...d-support-deal


According to this judge, you're incompetent to engage in business deals
for the benefit of your children. How's that for feminism for ya?
And if you don't think that way: ask yourself this. She signed the
deal, and he signed the deal, but she's still getting cash for it.
Clearly the judge thought there was no ill intent. In other words, she
was stupid, not criminal...A Democrat, in short.

Of course the laws can be reversed. Once a child is born, the child
support machinery kicks in. All rights that were there before are null
and void at the great alter of "best interests of the child". That
being the case, why not put forth the argument that since the judge
(in most cases) makes way more than the NCP that he/she should pay the
child support. That would be in the best interest of the child. Or how
about both parents would be forced to get back together to raise the
child with no agueing allowed. That would also be in the best interest
of the child.

As absurd as those arguments would be, they are really no different
than the ones that get enforced now such as "We are going to take your
right to have access to your child and send you all the bills". It's
just a matter of who is getting their rights stomped on.