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

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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?

"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

"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?

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