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

child support review objection



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1181  
Old January 10th 08, 04:16 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default child support review objection


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough

to
have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:5o7fj.8434$4m5.149@trnddc02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is

good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child
is
good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in

message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a
child
is
good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote
in
message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

What she is saying is that men should
have

a
way
of
deciding
they
don't
want to be parents early on, *just like
women
already
do*.
Parents
who
take on the responsibilities of parenting
their
child
can't
just
decide
they don't want to anymore, male or

female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or
adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified
tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer
want
to
take
on
the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the
clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents.
Adoptions
do
not
happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are

2
parents
in
the
picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe
that
men
are
equally
parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you
call
it
when
the
mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

Although correct, not what I was looking for.

chuckle That does not surprise me......

Nor does your answer surprise me.

Of course not. Because you are only looking for people

who
agree
with
you
that men should be able to walk away from their children
any
time
they
choose to, free and clear with no remaining

responsibility.

No I'm not.

You are NOT
looking for a way to balance the rights and
responsibilities
of
BOTH
parents.

Not sure what you mean by "balance". I fully support all
rights;
that
is
REAL rights.

The only rights you talk about here are the right to walk
away.
You
want
to use the current system to justify men walking away from
children.
When have you ev er talked about wanting to change things

so
that
fathers
and mothers have equal rights and responsibilities? With

you
it's
always
"the one who makes the unilateral decision to bring a
child
into
the
world has all the responsibility, too." Since men will
*never*
carry
a
baby inside them and deliver it into the world, it seems

that
you
feel
that women *always* make the unilateral decision to birth

the
child,
so
women *always* have 100% of the responsibility to care for
and
support
the child.

The case for giving post-conception reproductive rights

to
men
doesn't
hinge solely on the fact that only women get pregnant.
Instead,
it
hinges
on the disparity that now exists in the U.S. between the
reproductive
rights made available to women and those made available to
men.

As a result of a range of legal changes over the last 30

or
so
years,
women have been given a range of post-conception

reproductive
rights.
These rights include abortion, newborn drop-off laws in
many
states,
and
(as a practical matter) the ability to make unilateral
decisions
about
adoption of newborn children. By contrast, every effort is
made
to
DENY
men the post-conception reproductive right that Nature has
given
them --
that of walking away from unwanted (to them) pregnancies.
Furthermore,
the trend is to find more and more ways of denying men
post-conception
rights.

Why should it be in any way controversial to say that
men
shouldn't
have to pay for decisions unilaterally made by women? It
would
be
easy
to
provide a mechanism for men to surrender their paternal

rights
and
responsibilities in unwanted pregnancies. And this would

seem
to
be
far
LESS controversial than giving women abortion rights, since

it
would
not
entail what is arguably the killing of an unborn child.

The current situation reflects nothing more than the
reality
that
there
is a feminist movement pushing for more and more rights for
women.
However, there is no "masculinist" movement to protect
men's
rights
and
prevent men from having to pay the bill for decisions made

by
women.

I agree. However, the solution is NOT to accept the current
system
and
say
that men should just be able to walk away. The solution is
to
reset
the
system so that BOTH parents have *equitable* rights and
responsibilities.
Chris has stated over and over that even within a marriage
briging
a
child
to birth is a woman's unilateral choice, so men should be
able
to
walk
away
whenever they choose to. I find that repugnant.

Of course you do, because you have a rather poor understanding

of
the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

I'm not the one who lacks understanding here, Chris.

That you find it "repugnant" certainly suggests you do. That

aside,
just
what IS your understanding of the relationship?




I do believe that if 50/50
shared custody were the default position we would see far

fewer
situations
where children were being raised in single-parent households.
And
if
women
were held strictly accountable for their 50% of the financial
support
of
their children, we would also see far fewer single parent
households.
Just
giving men the right to walk away is not going to solve the
problem.

Yet women should continue to enjoy their right given to them
by
nature;
the
choice whether or not to give birth, correct?

Sure, Chris.

Ah, that mysterious double standard appears once again.

I don't see how it is a double standard, if men have the same
post-birth
right to safe haven as women do. If, right after birth, either or
both
parents can give up their parental rights and responsibilities, how

is
that
a double standard? (I know that is not how it is right now, but
that
still
does not justify your contention that *men* should be permitted to
walk
away
from their children any time they want to--and you feel that this
would
balance the abortion thing?)

A woman can "walk away" from a pregnancy at ANY time due to a
"right"
afforded by nature; but a man can NOT walk away from a child at any
time
due
to a right afforded by nature

Once the child is born and the safe haven time has expired a woman

cannot
walk away from the child any time any more than the man can, Chris.

Ever hear of adoption? Even so, somehow that makes my claim false?

You're
missing the boat. For some strange reason the woman has the right to

FORCE
the man into a choice. Explain.


Ever hear of the father having to be notified before his child is adopted
out?


Uhuh. "Father: unknown"................ next.


Uuuuuuhhhh.....then that man was never in any danger of being forced to be a
parent. Did you readthe next line before you made your comment?


Can a married woman adopt out her children without the
husband/father's approval just because she is a woman?


Yes. Women adopt away the father's child on a regular basis........ to
themselves.


No they don't. That's not adoption, and you know it perfectly well.


A woman cannot walk
away from a child any more than a man can, Chris, once that parenting
obligation has been undertaken. and you know perfectly well that I do
not
think that a woman should be able to force a man into the original
obligation to become a parent.


Becoming a parent, for a man, is not an obligation. Rather it's a matter
of
a woman's SOLE choice. That you are unable to digest this simple fact no
less makes it so.


Absolutely ridiculous, Chris. Married couples plan to have children and
follow through on that all the time. The fact that the man later changes
his mind does not turn the decision into a unilateral choice by the mother.
The fact that the woman later wants the child to herself does not mean that
the man should no longer be a father.


That does *not* mean that I think a man
should be able to walk away from any child at any time.


Just curious: You made the comment that a man choosing to raise a child is
locked into a permanent "child support" commitment barring a legal
adoption.


I actually did not say that. I said that a man should not be able to just
walk away from his child because he is tired of being a father. Just as I
think that a woman should not be able to force a man out of a child's life
because she wants to be the only parent--and wants nothing more than money
from the man. BOTH are equally despicable.



  #1182  
Old January 10th 08, 06:18 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default child support review objection


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip


WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature; JUST

as
the
woman
who decides to abort does.

Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person,
Chris.
After
the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature right

to
walk
away. Yopur contention is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the
right
to
abort.


I don't think abortion is a moral choice, but that does not make it
right
for either parent to just walk out on a child that he/she has
supported
for
years.

Your above statement is unclear. Are you saying that whether or not
someone
aborts is not a moral choice or that choosing to abort is immoral?

I would never abort a child because I think it is an immoral thing to

do.

Then perhaps you are debating in the wrong newsgroup. Unless you
believe
that preventing fathers from walking away from their children takes
precendence over stopping abortions.


Oh don't be ridiculouas, Chris. The chances of abortion being made

illegal
again are very slim.


Irrelevant.


Only in your mind, Chris.


You cannot say that a woman's legal right to abort her
child would be the same thing as a man being able to walk away from his
children any time he felt like it, leaving behind all responsibility.


You're right. Walking away from said child is far worse than merely
killing
it; thus not
the same.


chuckle You do twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify men's
right to abandon children at will, Chris. And as an excuse you use the
wrongness of the system today to justify your opinions. I am beginning to
think that you do not want to get rid of the system at all--merely want to
add to it the legal right of any man to abandon any child at any time.



  #1183  
Old January 11th 08, 01:37 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default child support review objection



--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip


WHY? He is merely excercising his right given by nature;

JUST
as
the
woman
who decides to abort does.

Any person has the ability to walk away from any other person,
Chris.
After
the child is born, the mother also has the given-by-nature

right
to
walk
away. Yopur contention is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the contention that she should have the
right
to
abort.


I don't think abortion is a moral choice, but that does not make

it
right
for either parent to just walk out on a child that he/she has
supported
for
years.

Your above statement is unclear. Are you saying that whether or

not
someone
aborts is not a moral choice or that choosing to abort is immoral?

I would never abort a child because I think it is an immoral thing

to
do.

Then perhaps you are debating in the wrong newsgroup. Unless you
believe
that preventing fathers from walking away from their children takes
precendence over stopping abortions.

Oh don't be ridiculouas, Chris. The chances of abortion being made

illegal
again are very slim.


Irrelevant.


Only in your mind, Chris.


Explain the relevancy.




You cannot say that a woman's legal right to abort her
child would be the same thing as a man being able to walk away from his
children any time he felt like it, leaving behind all responsibility.


You're right. Walking away from said child is far worse than merely
killing
it; thus not
the same.


chuckle You do twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify men's
right to abandon children at will, Chris. And as an excuse you use the
wrongness of the system today to justify your opinions. I am beginning to
think that you do not want to get rid of the system at all--merely want to
add to it the legal right of any man to abandon any child at any time.


But I just AGREED with you.







 




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
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child fx Spanking 0 September 14th 07 04:50 AM
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... fx Spanking 0 July 25th 07 04:46 AM
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... fx Foster Parents 0 July 25th 07 04:46 AM
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform [email protected] Child Support 0 February 24th 07 11:01 AM
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' Dusty Child Support 0 September 13th 04 12:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 AM.


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.