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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying... Are you saying that despite DNA paternity tests, some men are still being falsely accused of being biological fathers for the sake of child support AND the courts accept this? Exactly. See " Presumption Of Paternity " Laws... This may happen in situations where the "father" accepts the child as "his" w/o DNA tests. However, how can this happen when the supposed father disputes his paternity from the onset? Easy. One, if the guy and the woman didn't keep close contact ( Easy enough for one to arrange, for instance ), the guy may not even *know* that there is a child. For that matter, cases in CA. have seen guys with *the same name who never met, never mind slept with the claimant woman* getting tagged for non revokable CS. Secondly, it is not just "her" responsibility. What are condoms for anyway? The same as The Pill, RU-486, diaphrams, IUDs, Norplant... Again, you want to focus on *men being responsible for women*. Why is that ? Also, feel free to explain *how men* can, in any way, affect a woman's *post-coital unilateral choice* to either bear, or not bear a child. " Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. " Also, please explain why you view parenthood *for men, only*, as being unrevokable *at the time of sex*, but not so for women. Note that your " standard " would, in the name of equality, *require* that ALL post-coital choices for *women* be banned. So that *women's choice* must *also* be mandated at the time of sex. Whats that ? You *don't want equality for women* ? Why not ? On 26 Feb 2004 20:13:11 GMT, (Andre Lieven) wrote: My Own Doppelganger ) writes: Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids. However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also? So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio- fathers of the children they're being stolen from to pay some lying woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent offered the guy. Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to whether or not there will BE a child. " Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. " What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as their choices are*, is unclear to you ? On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote: If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and 5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever. I was wondering if anyone here feels the same. The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally chose to whelp*. If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out, and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ), then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying... Are you saying that despite DNA paternity tests, some men are still being falsely accused of being biological fathers for the sake of child support AND the courts accept this? Exactly. See " Presumption Of Paternity " Laws... This may happen in situations where the "father" accepts the child as "his" w/o DNA tests. However, how can this happen when the supposed father disputes his paternity from the onset? Easy. One, if the guy and the woman didn't keep close contact ( Easy enough for one to arrange, for instance ), the guy may not even *know* that there is a child. For that matter, cases in CA. have seen guys with *the same name who never met, never mind slept with the claimant woman* getting tagged for non revokable CS. Secondly, it is not just "her" responsibility. What are condoms for anyway? The same as The Pill, RU-486, diaphrams, IUDs, Norplant... Again, you want to focus on *men being responsible for women*. Why is that ? Also, feel free to explain *how men* can, in any way, affect a woman's *post-coital unilateral choice* to either bear, or not bear a child. " Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. " Also, please explain why you view parenthood *for men, only*, as being unrevokable *at the time of sex*, but not so for women. Note that your " standard " would, in the name of equality, *require* that ALL post-coital choices for *women* be banned. So that *women's choice* must *also* be mandated at the time of sex. Whats that ? You *don't want equality for women* ? Why not ? On 26 Feb 2004 20:13:11 GMT, (Andre Lieven) wrote: My Own Doppelganger ) writes: Well, it's like whatever is best for the kids. However, I do have a question... Why would a NCP NOT provide some type of child support? I mean, aren't the kids theirs also? So ? In the case of children either not of marriages, or the hundreds of thousands of men being garnished from, who are *not* the bio- fathers of the children they're being stolen from to pay some lying woman, there was NO express prior agreement to become a parent offered the guy. Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to whether or not there will BE a child. " Her body, her choice... HER RESPONSIBILITY. " What part of women being *as responsible for their own choices as their choices are*, is unclear to you ? On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:20:17 -0600, Anti-Sheila J smcneillAToddpostDOTcom wrote: If the court would award me custody of my two daughters (ages 8 and 5), I would be willing to waive child support AND make certain I exceeded all visitation requirements for their mother. I would make this deal without any hesitation or reservation, whatsoever. I was wondering if anyone here feels the same. The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally chose to whelp*. If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out, and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ), then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids. No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "... Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that men *be responsible for her sole choices*... I personally feel that the NCP should fund 60% - 70% of the DOLLARS associated with raising the kid(s). " Show me the money ! " And, to hell with the kids, since all you want is to be *paid to raise your own kids*. Thanks for defining the Feminist Kids-As Whores/Mom As Pimp ideology. At the same time, I also believe that the NCP should have liberal visitation/access to the kid(s). Enforced the same way that CS is, right ? Uh huh. To damn naive of me, huh? No. But completely Feminist. Feminism is to men what the KKK is to blacks. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:21:27 GMT, Lauri wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:38:02 -0500, "YooperBoyka" wrote: "Lauri" wrote in message ... Put your conspiracy theory to rest. There are some things that warrant immediate respect from me, ...this is one. Why? Remember, at the time we had 50/50 custody. He was ordered by the court to pay CS because he made a LOT more money than me--I would not have been able to have shared custody were it not for the CS in those early years. After the first two years, he asked if I would agree to a reduction; as it turns out, his parents had been paying his CS for him for those two years and it made me sick to realize that I'd been accepting money from them unknowingly. I agreed to the reduction because he said he might have to sell his house if I didn't; I could afford the reduction by then so I said OK. Two years after that is when he (legally) stopped paying altogether. Now that he's remarried, his involvement with the kids has drastically dropped off. Our kids are older, and are having a difficult time adjusting to the yelling, blaring TVs, and invasions of privacy that come with a passle of younger kids. They're spending most of their time here now, so the thought of going back and re-instating some CS *has* occurred to me. It seems that he should be contributing to the support of his kids in some way; I'm just not sure it's worth the hassle factor. I'm worried about what will happen when I have two in college and am trying to do this all on my own. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
My Own Doppelganger ) writes:
From my perspective, the NCP should pay more that 50% of the cost associated with the upbringing of the child/children. Why? Because it takes a hell of a lot more energy than $$$'s to raise the kids. No problem. If the " energy " is *too much* for you, then hand over the kids to Dad, and pay *him* 70% of the " costs "... Again, here we have a wonderful example of a woman who demands that men *be responsible for her sole choices*... I personally feel that the NCP should fund 60% - 70% of the DOLLARS associated with raising the kid(s). " Show me the money ! " And, to hell with the kids, since all you want is to be *paid to raise your own kids*. Thanks for defining the Feminist Kids-As Whores/Mom As Pimp ideology. At the same time, I also believe that the NCP should have liberal visitation/access to the kid(s). Enforced the same way that CS is, right ? Uh huh. To damn naive of me, huh? No. But completely Feminist. Feminism is to men what the KKK is to blacks. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:21:27 GMT, Lauri wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:38:02 -0500, "YooperBoyka" wrote: "Lauri" wrote in message ... Put your conspiracy theory to rest. There are some things that warrant immediate respect from me, ...this is one. Why? Remember, at the time we had 50/50 custody. He was ordered by the court to pay CS because he made a LOT more money than me--I would not have been able to have shared custody were it not for the CS in those early years. After the first two years, he asked if I would agree to a reduction; as it turns out, his parents had been paying his CS for him for those two years and it made me sick to realize that I'd been accepting money from them unknowingly. I agreed to the reduction because he said he might have to sell his house if I didn't; I could afford the reduction by then so I said OK. Two years after that is when he (legally) stopped paying altogether. Now that he's remarried, his involvement with the kids has drastically dropped off. Our kids are older, and are having a difficult time adjusting to the yelling, blaring TVs, and invasions of privacy that come with a passle of younger kids. They're spending most of their time here now, so the thought of going back and re-instating some CS *has* occurred to me. It seems that he should be contributing to the support of his kids in some way; I'm just not sure it's worth the hassle factor. I'm worried about what will happen when I have two in college and am trying to do this all on my own. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child. I agree that *is* wrong. I think men should have some say, after all, they *are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman. If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself better. If he didn't, the same goes for him. The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally chose to whelp*. I resent this remark. I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children. They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being responsible for her. HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old. Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the meantime, instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc. My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children (ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone, on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to whine about "poor, poor" him? And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both families. And some of our income is even in the form of student loans, which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now, it will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I was ****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to. IF he saw her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he stopped seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her about once a month, when it's convenient for him. Even though he is supposed to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer, he has not and will not. It's too difficult for him, he would have to provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with us until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans on hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a room with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and a half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and "Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her father's house. Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I just did. If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out, and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ), then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*... Again, I agree. Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex (protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except abstinence) is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent who wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the woman. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed to have sole custody with no child support from the woman. She chose to take the risk, if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had sex. Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole custody with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only reason he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is because there has to be some kind of consequence, otherwise men would just go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the babies. He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex. Either gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want. However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then one changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible for a child they might not have had if they'd known it was going to be them on their own. My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he would have to pay child support. Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have. Though I didn't sign up to be a single parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a single parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me in the lurch, either. There's got to be some compromise where both genders have equal rights when it comes to kids. I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it. -- Krista Young Devoted wife, loving mother ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Res esse videntur velut "filia sterilis virginis sculpta in lapide." -Candrikriti ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Liberty in Our Lifetime - www.freestateproject.org |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to
whether or not there will BE a child. I agree that *is* wrong. I think men should have some say, after all, they *are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman. If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself better. If he didn't, the same goes for him. The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally chose to whelp*. I resent this remark. I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children. They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being responsible for her. HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old. Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the meantime, instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc. My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children (ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone, on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to whine about "poor, poor" him? And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both families. And some of our income is even in the form of student loans, which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now, it will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I was ****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to. IF he saw her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he stopped seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her about once a month, when it's convenient for him. Even though he is supposed to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer, he has not and will not. It's too difficult for him, he would have to provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with us until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans on hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a room with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and a half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and "Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her father's house. Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I just did. If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out, and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ), then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*... Again, I agree. Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex (protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except abstinence) is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent who wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the woman. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed to have sole custody with no child support from the woman. She chose to take the risk, if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had sex. Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole custody with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only reason he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is because there has to be some kind of consequence, otherwise men would just go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the babies. He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex. Either gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want. However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then one changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible for a child they might not have had if they'd known it was going to be them on their own. My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he would have to pay child support. Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have. Though I didn't sign up to be a single parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a single parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me in the lurch, either. There's got to be some compromise where both genders have equal rights when it comes to kids. I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it. -- Krista Young Devoted wife, loving mother ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Res esse videntur velut "filia sterilis virginis sculpta in lapide." -Candrikriti ~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Liberty in Our Lifetime - www.freestateproject.org |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I just did. Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance. -- "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
Krista wrote:
Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up. I could say that men like you are just misogynists who can't stand it that women have choices at all, but that would be just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Stick to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I just did. Excellent response. Presentation is equally as important as substance. -- "Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Child support - who needs it?
"Krista" ) writes:
Further, in all such cases, the *woman is the sole chooser* as to whether or not there will BE a child. I agree that *is* wrong. Now, lets watch you *equivicate away* from that initial point... I think men should have some say, after all, they *are* just as responsible for the child being there, as is the woman. WRONG. NO man can *make* a woman carry to term, if *she doesn't want to*, and NO man can make a woman NOT carry to term, *if she doesn't want to*. But, thanks for showing us that, when it comes to *women*, you want to have it *both ways*... If she didn't want to have a kid, she should have protected herself better. So, you *haven't heard of WOMEN's post-coital choices*.... Like RU-486, abortion, legal and unilateral adopting out, and legal and unilateral infant abandon laws... BTW, theres *nothing* about those last two that is limited to their use by women, only... If he didn't, the same goes for him. Thanks for showing that you demand that *men be responsible for women's POST-COITAL choices... The *silence* from women is palpable. Nor do I mean the very few women here on Usenet, but the *millions* of greedy women going to kourts, demanding loot for the begging bowls *they unilaterally chose to whelp*. I resent this remark. Tough ! You're NOT " all women. " Deal with it. I *DID NOT EVER* unilaterally decide to have ANY of my children. Really ? What *right of veto* did they have *over your decision making process* ? .... Exactly. They were all discussed with their prospective fathers, and in the middle one's case, I even offered him the option of not being responsible for her. Which, *under the law*, would hold up only *as long as you wanted it to*... HE wanted to get married, and then HE abused me until I couldn't take it anymore and left when our daughter was 9 months old. shrug *You* chose him.... Because of who he is and how he is, even though I offered him reduced child support, etc. he chose to pay the full amount, but in the meantime, instead of being honest with me, he lies to me about getting raises and then whines about how he never gets to see his daughter because his car is in bad shape, he can't afford to fix it, etc, etc, etc. Boo hoo. You chose him. And, thanks for showing us all that, your claim of lower payments notwithstanding, when the stuff hit the fan, *your main issue* is *his delivery of money to YOU*... Thanks for making my point for me... My current husband and I live on $20,000/year raising two children (ages 3.5 and 22 months) and he can't even support himself, alone, Why *should he* ? Can *you* ? Without the loot flowing from your guy #1 ? Uh huh... on over $15,000 MORE than that without having to whine about "poor, poor" him? Well, you chose them both... And those figures are AFTER taxes, AND his figure is AFTER the money he does pay me in CS. That is net income for both families. Gee. You've just discovered that *two households can't live as well as one, on the same money*. Your Nobel Prize For Economics is in the mail... And some of our income is even in the form of student loans, which we eventually have to pay back, so though it's income right now, it will be outflow later. I *COULD* take him to court and get his child support increased. I thought about doing it for no other reason than I was ****ed that he couldn't be honest with me, but I chose not to. But, *you could have*... YOU had that *power to decide his fate*. When did he *ever* have a similar power to decide *your fate* ? Uh huh... IF he saw her more often I would probably consider lowering his CS, or if he stopped seeing her altogether, but he has done neither, he continues to see her about once a month, when it's convenient for him. shrug *You chose him*... Did you find out, *before you chose to bear a child*, what his potential was to be a father, if HE were to choose that status ? Uh huh... Even though he is supposed to take her for all of Spring Break week and 42 days in the summer, he has not and will not. Ibid. It's too difficult for him, he would have to provide daycare and stuff, you know. Much easier to just leave her with us until he feels like having her visit and then asking us to put our plans on hold while he takes her for the weekend. Not to mention he shares a room with her and she's seen and heard him and his various girlfriends having sex. But that's a whole other story. I should NEVER hear my three and a half year old daughter saying things like "Ooh, baby, come for me." and "Shh, quiet, you'll wake the baby." while I'm drving her home from her father's house. Ibid. Anyway, your problem is that even if you have a point, it is completely getting lost in your sweeping generalizations that just won't bear up. LOL ! Yeah, they so " won't hold up " that you were UNABVLE even to TRY to refute them... laughs Go back to Baby Feminist school... I could say that men like you are just misogynists Misogynist (n.): A Man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist. who can't stand it that women have choices at all, No, who can't stand the *bleating lies and hypocrisy of those who have ALL of the post-coital choices*, and who CAN'T be as responsible, IE, 100%, as they have *choices*... but that would be just as worng (and, incidentally, that is NOT what I think). Ah. So, you routinely type LIES about what you think. Got it. Stick to the individual topics you are responding to and away from the sweeping generalizations and see what happens, I bet more people will listen to what you have to say instead of getting all defensive, as I just did. " You're right... just not in the right way. " Well, toots, *men* will speak as we will, and if you *can't deal with that.... tough* ! If sex is not the determinant time of parental choice for a woman ( The existance of abortion, RU-486, legal adopting out, and legal woman-only abandon laws shows that it *isn't* ), then its SEXIST to claim that it must be, for *men, only*... Again, I agree. Yet, its WOMEN'S groups *fighting* any choices for men... What lobby groups have you joined, in an effort to *live your claim* ? Uh huh... Men *should* be allowed to give up their rights if they so choose, just as women are. I think that any man or woman who has sex (protected or otherwise, because no BC is 100% effective except abstinence) is taking a risk, if the woman turns up pregnant, they should mutually decide what course of action to take, if they cannot agree the parent who wants the child to live should supercede, whether it's the man or the woman. No problem ! Let her *also pay for her choices and their consequences*, in PRECISELY the same ratio as she had available the choice. IOW, 100% to *both*... If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, he should be allowed to have sole custody with no child support from the woman. That would be... equal rights. So, why does every major women's group OPPOSE this ? Uh huh... She chose to take the risk, if she gets saddled with nine months of misery having to carry and birth the child, well, she should have thought of that before she had sex. Still haven't heard of abortion, RU-486, et al... Got it. Similarly, if the woman wants the child, she should be allowed sole custody with no support from the man after the birth of the child. The only reason he should be partially financially responsible during the pregnancy is because there has to be some kind of consequence, Ah ! Here we go, the bleat of the Festering Femmeroid, claiming that *men must pay women for sex* ! How does your Junior Anti-Sex League sash fit on you ? otherwise men would just go around impregnating women and leaving them if they didn't want the babies. Oh ? You see women as *non-sentient* creatures, *unable* to detect a man in the process of " impregnating her " ? laughs He chose to take the risk, if he gets saddled with that nine month burden, well, he should have thought about that before he had sex. So, *men should be responsible for women, since women CAN'T be responsible for themselves*... You really have a *low opinion* of... women... Either gender should be able to not be responsible for a child they don't want. So, unless a woman can *show proof* of pre-cital acceptance of the status of father from the guy, she then has zero claim ? Good. However, there should be some way for women and men who agree, but then one changes their mind later, for one not to be solely responsible for a child they might not have had if they'd known it was going to be them on their own. Translation: " When women change their minds, men should still pay them "... Women as whelping whores. Interesting view of women *you show*, there... My ex husband bandied about terminating his parental rights so he would have to pay child support. I presume you mean " *wouldn't* habe to pay... "... Luckily, in the state we're in he couldn't unless I agreed, and I wouldn't have. Translation: " All power to *choose to the woman*... " Got it. Though I didn't sign up to be a single parent to our daughter, HE wanted to marry ME, I was ready to be a single parent at that time, but once we'd agreed to be a unit in raising our child, I wasn't about to let him back out of the agreement and leave me in the lurch, either. IOW, he's *your insurance policy, and his own*. So, when push came to shove, you never *had to stand on your own*. Only *he did*... Got it. There's got to be some compromise where both genders have equal rights when it comes to kids. Not in *your life*, though... I'm sure all the raging feminazis are going to get me over that one, but what the heck, I have a thick skin, I can take it. LOL ! Imagine, a widdle supported woman, claiming to have to stand up to feminazis. She's never met Warren Farrell, I'd bet... Irony Meter: [...../] laughs Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |