Father's importance no laughing matter

Ben wrote:

On Jul 13, 7:51 pm, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

And compulsory DNA testing is what courts do all the time.

Not in these circumstances, and not for men demanding pregnant women
take them because they suspect they might be the father.
-----------------------------
The courts require them, dumbass.

Not under safe haven laws. And not for adoptions.
----------------------------
Only if paternity is unclear.


Safe haven laws allow parent(s) to abdicate their responsibilities
voluntary.
---------------
No, only to shift custody temporarily for the child's welfare.

Custody is intended to be permanent unless the parent decides to
return within the proscribed time frame.
--------------------------
Yup. But they still get a bill for support until formal adoption.


Even parents who have kids taken from them temporarily and
placed in foster homes are billed for the foster home care!!

Nope.
------------------
Yup. I know several guys who get bills like that!


No. The child ALSO has the right of support that CANNOT BE abrogated
without a court decree!

We're talking about adoption and safe haven. You can keep trying to
move the goalposts, but I'll just put them back.
------------------------
Your comment is intentional nonsense you saw work someplace else
and that you are imitating.


You posturing ****. You need a course in government.

I assure you, there's nothing about government that you're capable of
teaching me.
-----------------------
Then you should know better. All you've succeeded in doing is to make
most of us realize that you're lying like a fish.


You're posturing disingenuously again.

I am not--I'm freely insulting you.
---------------
You're not able.


According to surveys I've read, most abortion supporters are against
partial birth abortion, also known as infanticide.
--------------------------
Nope, they aren't. And it isn't. Why? Because it is almost wholly and
ONLY used to remove an anencephalic fetus, one that developed with
little or no BRAIN, and in which the risk of delivery to the mother
is too great for medically justified normal birth. It is a total MYTH
that ANY women seeking abortion seek this late-term procedure. It is
ALWAYS suggested by physicians ONLY to prevent damage to the mother,
because the skull of the fetus in those cases is often deformed and
has sharpedges and deep depressions in it. it is better to extract
the skull contents and then vaccuum it out with a suction hose and
remove it in pieces with small forceps.

I see you're not aware of any real research in this area, are you?
Are you reading from a pamphlet, by any chance?
---------------------------
Yes I am, and no I'm not.
Why else would a majority of people worldwide understand this,
yet you do not?


You stated something you didn't actually even expect us to believe,
that's the definition of disingenuity.

American Heritage Dictionary:
[]
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:

*That's* the definition of disingenuous. As you can see, I was being
insulting and sarcastic, not disingenuous.
-----------------------
No, I don't talk to stupid people for long, meaning you had to know
better than the **** you were promoting.


Well, Steve, I'm afraid we've come to the end of our conversation.
You're not intelligent or interesting, and you've committed the
cardinal sin of not even being entertaining anymore. I'm not going to
plonk you, because I never plonk, but I'm going to take Banty's advice
and just ignore you now. Wipe the spittle from you lips and have a
good life.
---------------------
I do already.
But I bet you'll **** up and talk crap again, and I'll jump your ass.
Steve

Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous?

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Ben wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:06 pm, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Benwrote:

On Jul 11, 10:17 am, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Safe Haven is for the CHILD'S safety, it does NOTHING to abrogate
the
mother's OR the father's economic responsibility!!

This would be another inaccuracy. Safe haven laws in most states
allow for an individual to drop a baby off at a designated safe site,
no questions asked. Some states ask that the person at the site give
the individual dropping the baby off an opportunity to leave some
medical information, but this isn't mandatory.
------------------------
That's to encourage parental compliance for the child's safety.
It in NO way ends the State's obligation to seek the child's right
to support from its bio-parents, and when they do, a court will
attach their wages!

No, safe haven means just that, that the parent(s) can drop the child
off and walk away unidentified and unencumbered. In fact, in some
states, any adult can do it.
----------------------------
So do you think that intelligent congressbeings and assemblypersons
intended that they lose their children just because their spouse goes
crazy one day and gives them away to their local firehouse???

That's not what I think, but that's because I know what safe haven
laws are. Pity you can't say the same.
----------------------
No, you only imagine that you do. Your ignorance is obvious to anyone
even slightly experienced with the law.


Don't
be an ass!

Of course any adult can do that, but it neither ends parental
obligation nor parental rights.

Yes it does. They will restart if the parent changes his/her mind,
but absent that, obligations and rights end.
-----------------------
Nope, parental rights and obligations are equal for both parents, and
your twisted notion would suggest a father could give away his child
because he decided he didn't want to get divorced and have to pay
child-support!!


In fact that guarantee is the HEART of all such laws!

No it's not.
--------------------------
Of course it is, the heart of the legislation is that a parent who
surrenders a child because the child might be in danger with them
is guaranteed to be able to get the child back in a reasonable
period of time. When they do they will be handed a bill for
support during that period. If they don't come get them, then
they will be billed for support anyway, but the child will be
fostered and/or adopted.


The mother or father can GET THE CHILD BACK LATER!

If done within a fairly restricted time frame (this can vary according
to the jurisdiction).
-----------------------
Yup. But the obligation for support remains until adoption.


It is for the protection of the CHILD AT THAT TIME,

So far, this is the closest you've been to being accurate.

it does NOT
magically abrogate parental rights!

You're right, there's no magic involved. It's all statutes and
legalities.
------------------------
Ain't any. You're confabulating.


Now, if the mother and father don't have to be identified, just how
would you enforce their economic responsibility? And, wouldn't safe
haven laws that compel identification in order to compel
responsibility be self-defeating?
----------------------------
Gee, how do we find other deadbeat criminals?

That wasn't the question, now, was it?
-----------------
YOU seemed to think so.

The question was, if they, by
law, don't have to be identified, how would you enforce their
responsibility. IOW, the state is prohibited by law from trying to
identify them.
----------------------------------
Mope. Nonsense. In fact it is REQUIRED by family court when a second
parent must be contacted.

You're confusing safe haven laws with adoption laws.
---------------------------
No. They are unrelated, and the obligation of support continues even
if the child is Safe-Haven-ed.


And adoption
requires your support continue EVEN WHILE the child is fostered in
the
new home UNTIL FORMAL ADOPTION!!

I don't know if this is true or not, but given your general level
of accuracy, I'd have my doubts.
----------------------------
You mean given YOUR general level of stupidity...

Witty banter--who'd have thought it from you?
---------------------
You started it.

I see you're as adept at recognizing sarcasm as you are the holes in
your arguments.
------------------------
No, I usually just ignore it as an effort at distraction.


AND no child CAN be adopted out
without the father's permission or refusal to seek paternity
rights!

Children are adopted out all the time without the father being
identified or giving permission.
----------------------
Only if they choose not to seek their parental rights or not to have
standing before the court. So that doesn't count.

So you stated no child can be adopted out wither paternal permission,
I said they are all the time, and you immediately agree. Okay.
-----------------------------
Nope. You're a liar.

The words are right there.
----------------------------
Nope. You're a liar.


No parent that expresses interest is denied their
parental rights merely because their wife went nuts one day and gave
their children to some nice firemen.

Moving the goalposts again, I see.
---------------------
Nope, different circumstance to clarify, you posturing disingenuous
little ****head!


The mother doesn't have to identify
him. She can claim she slept with multiple men and doesn't know who
the father is. She can claim she had sex with an anonymous guy at a
party. The state makes an incompetent effort to locate the father
and, failing to do so within a certain time frame, proceeds with the
adoption.
---------------------------
Yes, a father has the obligation to know where his children are. If
he does not, then his claim to fit parenthood is not well believed,
but that is the same as it is for women.

Stupid statement. What if she concealed the pregnancy from him? What
if she lied about him being the father? Are you now advocating
stalking and compulsory DNA testing?
--------------------------------------
It is simple to find out if someone is pregnant without stalking.

Not if they don't want you to know.
-----------------------
Nonsense, detectives have no trouble at all.


And compulsory DNA testing is what courts do all the time.

Not in these circumstances, and not for men demanding pregnant women
take them because they suspect they might be the father.
-----------------------------
The courts require them, dumbass. And they are the DNA of the child,
not the mother. Not unless there is something peculiar.


Why do you LIE this way?????????

I suppose when you're badly misinformed, the truth would seem to be a
lie.
------------------------------
Or a LIE would. It is a LIE that juvenile and family courts do not
seek to indentify fathers for support of their children, and that
they seek this as an advocate fro the CHILD'S rights, or that
this obligation magically ends with changes in custody!

Family courts do indeed seek to establish paternity to award support.
But that has nothing to do with safe haven laws or forbidding adoption
with paternal permission.
-------------------------------
Safe Haven laws do NOT deprive people of their parental rights, or
they would never have been passed.

Safe haven laws allow parent(s) to abdicate their responsibilities
voluntary.
---------------
No, only to shift custody temporarily for the child's welfare.

The are not allowed to discharge their obligation to the child except
by court adoption decree.


After a given time frame, they can't get them back.
---------------------
But they are still billed for support till adoption occurs.
Even parents who have kids taken from them temporarily and
placed in foster homes are billed for the foster home care!!


I've
truly dumbed this down enough for even you to understand.
----------------------
Don't posture, you ****head.


Anyway, it would be a denial of
due process and illegal under the 4th Amendment without a court's
unfit parent decree terminating their parental rights!

If it was involuntary.
----------------------------
No. The child ALSO has the right of support that CANNOT BE abrogated
without a court decree!


No mere law
can deprive a person of that without amending the constitution.

(Slapping forehead) What a maroon.
-------------------------------
You posturing ****. You need a course in government.


I don't know about "authorized", but I would agree that a blind eye
was turned towards the practice of infanticide.
----------------------
No, it is not merely authorized in island cultures it is required
by their tribal law to control population!

And Roman infanticide was based on the Roman legality known as
PaterFamilias, meaning that the father, as head of his family, had
the right to take the life of anyone in his family, especially
defective or unwanted infants. Custom was that the father had to
formally accept the child into the family in three days or else
kill it. But that was just custom, the law said he could kill
any of his household.

Ah. Well, as I said, I wasn't sure about this.

No newborn is a BEING, and is ethically eligible to be
terminated for social ends.

So you think it's all right to kill a newborn for "social ends"?
You're a ****ing nut.

---------------------------------
The RIGHT of a person to their body is NOT some picayune "social
end".

"Social end" was your term, not mine.

I'm saying the newborn isn't yet a BEING.

Then you're saying something wrong. Even advocates of partial birth
infanticide generally don't try and claim that once the baby is out of
the womb, it's still not a person.
---------------------------------
Sure they do, if they consider the issue logically.

Perhaps the most rabid, wide-eyed idealogues--you appear to be their
king (or queen, whatever).
-------------------------
You're posturing disingenuously again.


The abortion
advocate regards assertions that the newborn is magically a person
only moments after it was a fetus realize that such a notion would
be arbitrary poppycock!

According to surveys I've read, most abortion supporters are against
partial birth abortion, also known as infanticide.
--------------------------
Nope, they aren't. And it isn't. Why? Because it is almost wholly and
ONLY used to remove an anencephalic fetus, one that developed with
little or no BRAIN, and in which the risk of delivery to the mother
is too great for medically justified normal birth. It is a total MYTH
that ANY women seeking abortion seek this late-term procedure. It is
ALWAYS suggested by physicians ONLY to prevent damage to the mother,
because the skull of the fetus in those cases is often deformed and
has sharpedges and deep depressions in it. it is better to extract
the skull contents and then vaccuum it out with a suction hose and
remove it in pieces with small forceps.


But what society
does about this form of property is completely the society's decision
as ALL decisions about property are. If the society decides that
the property, the newborn, is to be claimed by the other parent
or the State, then so be it, and it should abrogate the right of
economic support for whichever parents want out of it.

Here's what you should do: You should recite in front of a mirror all
the nonsense you write here and see if it sounds sane to you.
Hopefully, it doesn't.
-------------------
Don't be a disingenuous ass,

I take offense! I wasn't being disingenuous, I was being insulting
and sarcastic.
--------------------
You stated something you didn't actually even expect us to believe,
that's the definition of disingenuity.


of course it makes sense to me,

I was afraid of that.

you
****-for-brains!!

But the State will probably want to set a date after birth where
the child has a right to continue and affirm its right to support
by its parents.

So the State will probably require that it be killed quickly, or
after a specified time it will be taken by the other parent or the
State and adopted out.

I take back what I said about you being nuts--you're beyond that.
-------------------------
Your impotent nonsense.

and since it is no longer in
the body of the woman , is it also OK for the father to kill this
so called
NON BEING.
----------------------
Only if she wants to give it up.
It is her personal property, made of and by her body.
Until it is several weeks old is is NOT a BEING, it is property!
Steve

Yep, you're nuts.
---------------------
You're now spewing illogic.
Nope, you just don't LIKE it, which doesn't make ME anything.

You're right, I don't like the fact that, by your own words, you
believe a baby is not a being. As to what that makes you...well,
there are plenty of adjectives.
------------------
Why you glib little whore?

Is this a question asking me something, or is this a statement that
you've inadvertently tacked a question mark on to?
----------------
Typo, missed the bang.
Steve

MCP wrote:

Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous?
-------------------
What's that, and how did you first find out about it?
Steve

In article , R. Steve Walz says...

MCP wrote:

Hey Walz! are you a member of kocksuckers anonymous?
-------------------
What's that, and how did you first find out about it?
Steve

Heh. Good one.

Banty