deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but
he's
good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not
the
brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are
talking
about a man and NOT a woman.

I never said he wasn't good enough. He has no transportation or
housing
of his own, and he claims he cannot afford to cover half of her basic
needs.

LOVE the contradiction.

What contradiction? He is not capable of supporting her on his own. That
is not the same as "not good enough"

Then if he IS good enough to care for her, let him do so.


--

Sarah Gray

--
[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
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
well, please, Chris, enlighten me as to how he can contribute
anm
equal
share towards supporting her without sending me money.

EXACTLY the same way you are doing it.

Well how do you propose he pay for half of her food costs, shelter
costs, and childcare costs without sending me money (or the
equivalent)?

Like I said, EXACTLY the same way you are doing it.

But I *am* spending money on these things. He is unable to care for her
on his own.

NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but he's
good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are talking
about a man and NOT a woman.




I spend the money I earn on those things. Why should he not do so?

Why SHOULD he? The burden of proof rests with you.

Why *should* he? You argue that she ought to live with him,

IF, keword "IF", you want her to be with him. For some reason, you keep
making sure to NOT include that part of my claim.


however,
this is not an option. If he is unwilling to do what he needs to do to
be a real dad, the last he can do is help to support her.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.

Idiotum ad infinitum

Not sure what that is. Perhaps you meant "idiot ad infinitum". If so, I
don't know why you are talking about yourself since that's not the topic of
this discussion.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
Nice straw man, not to mention non sequitur too. By you refusing to
allow
the child to be with him, it is YOU who is putting him in the
situation of
not having her with him.


I am not refusing to allow her to be with him. In fact, he is coming up
next weekend and she is spending a few days with him.

Don't TWIST it! A two day visit is NOT what we are talking about.

He has stated that
he does not want her to miss school do that he can visit her.

--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
Then if he IS good enough to care for her, let him do so.

He is not *capable* of doing so. How hard is that to understand. Not to
mention the fact that he has not expressed any interest in doing so.

--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
Nice straw man, not to mention non sequitur too. By you refusing to
allow
the child to be with him, it is YOU who is putting him in the
situation of
not having her with him.


I am not refusing to allow her to be with him. In fact, he is coming up
next weekend and she is spending a few days with him.

Don't TWIST it! A two day visit is NOT what we are talking about.

Hey, he could see her more often if he wanted to. He *chooses* not to.

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
They reason that men have no rights regarding children, thus it
follows that
they have no responsibilities. Something most second graders
understand.

I thought that the reason you think men have no responsibilities towards
their children was that they don't "create" them....

And where do you think the "family" court people get their "no rights for
fathers" from?


--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
Nice straw man, not to mention non sequitur too. By you refusing to
allow
the child to be with him, it is YOU who is putting him in the
situation of
not having her with him.


I am not refusing to allow her to be with him. In fact, he is coming
up
next weekend and she is spending a few days with him.

Don't TWIST it! A two day visit is NOT what we are talking about.

Hey, he could see her more often if he wanted to. He *chooses* not to.

How often is "more" often?



--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Chris wrote:
Then if he IS good enough to care for her, let him do so.

He is not *capable* of doing so. How hard is that to understand.

Then he is not good enough to do so. How hard is THAT to understand?

Not to
mention the fact that he has not expressed any interest in doing so.

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
You can't insist that men not
be made to support their children, and then also claim that men
should
be able to spend more time with their children. they are either
responsible for those children, or they are not.

FINALLY, ya got something right! Because the "family" court people say
the
father has no rights, it simply follows that he has no
responsibilities. Not
to mention, Federal courts say that a man has no post-conception
reproductive rights. Ya know, can't have yer cake and eat it too.

While I do not agree with the above statement (in fact, please cite how
a man has "no rights" when it comes to family court), *if* a man truly
has no rights when it comes to his children, the mother has no reason to
let him visit with or ortherwidse be involved in his children's lives...

That is correct. Now, how about you cite how a man DOES have rights.


If there is no responsibility, there are no rights...

And vice versa.



--

Sarah Gray

On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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
. net...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
.net...
Chris wrote:
Why would I ask for more than an approximate of half of my
daughter's
basic expenses?

Actually, it's a demand; but that's another discussion. A better
question is
why not? Afterall, when something's FREE why not get all you can?

*you* think it unethical to expect a father to support his children
financially.

Correction: I think it "unethical" to extort money from a man by force!

What about a woman? We agreed to have a child. Now he does not want to
support her. If anything, *he* is creating a financial burden on *me*!

Uhuh. And if you agree that I should purchase a new automobile, but you
don't contribute to the payments, then you are creating a financial burden
on me. LOVE your reasoning!

Ah.....Car = child. Hmmmm..........Purchase =
reproduction....I...um....seee......sure.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

tee hee