Runnin from Custodial Parent

teachrmama wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Relayer wrote:

Men that run around procreating at random need to be castrated.

The usual anti-sex anti-abortion extremism.

From your ultraextreme position,

The usual pro-lie smears.

Your "I should be able to have sex with anyone I want and never bear any
responsibility for MY OWN ACTIONS AND CHOICES" attitude is exactly what
brought the outrageous system we have in place today into existence, Ray.

MEN DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN! It's not a man's action that
results in a child.

Your perverse notion that men MUST pay for sex is demeaning to women
and insulting to men.

I've never said that, Ray. Never!

So you agree that men SHOULD be able to have as much consensual sex as
they like? Then why are you asking me?

--
Ray Fischer

On Sep 30, 12:34?pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Relayer wrote:
Men that run around procreating at random need to be castrated.

The usual anti-sex anti-abortion extremism.

--
Ray Fischer


I am not anti-sex Ray. I have 5 children. I paid exactly $1000 a week
in child support. I paid for braces. I paid their medical. I paid for
2 of them to be in college and the other 3 when their time comes.

Unlike you Ray, I am a man.

On Sep 30, 6:51?pm, Relayer wrote:
On Sep 30, 12:34?pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Relayer wrote:
Men that run around procreating at random need to be castrated.

The usual anti-sex anti-abortion extremism.

--
Ray Fischer


I am not anti-sex Ray. I have 5 children. I paid exactly $1000 a week
in child support. I paid for braces. I paid their medical. I paid for
2 of them to be in college and the other 3 when their time comes.

Unlike you Ray, I am a man.

Oh..and I was never late once

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Because a man has a right to walk out at any time
because he doesn't have a uterus?

Why not? A woman does.

Your thinking is the polar opposite of
today's CS system which seems, for the most part, to automatically
give
the
children to the woman. Neither extreme is fair or equitable.

Men should have the same rights that women do.

That's right, Ray. Men and women should have rights and
responsibilities
that are equitable. Which means that BOTH should be able to make the
same
balance of choices, and BOTH should have the same set of
responsibilities.
And, in my opinion, NEITHER should be able to walk away scott free!

Then the difference is that I believe in liberty and you believe in
forced servitude.

No I don't, Ray.

"NEITHER should be able to walk away scott free!"

That's the problem I have with the current system. But I
do believe in personal responsibility.

Every time somebody starts going on about "personal responsibility"
it's always about making somebody else accept assigned responsibility.
It's never about being personally responsible.

In a perfect world, Ray, what would you say the responsibility of a man is
toward a child he provides the sperm to create?

Any responsibility that he accepted. Just like the woman.

Ah, but Ray, that's where the problem is. The woman doesn't accept
responsibility just for herself--she gets to accept responsibility for the
man, too. So how would you restructure it? Just have men able to walk
away, and to heck with the woman and the child? Is that the kind of people
you want the men in this country to be?

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
teachrmama wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
"teachrmama" wrote in message

If the sperm and egg get together (by the actions of a man and a
woman)
and
conception occurs, you think that all women should abort unless they
want
to
raise a child alone? Because a man has a right to walk out at any
time
because he doesn't have a uterus? Your thinking is the polar
opposite
of
today's CS system which seems, for the most part, to automatically
give
the
children to the woman.

Such "system" recognizes the fact that it is the WOMAN who creates the
child. Thus, it is the creator (woman) that owns (rightfully has
custody
of)
the product (child). I believe his position is in synch with theirs
rather
than opposite.

You really are very immature, Chris, if you think that you should be
able
to
do whatever you want, and leave the responsibility for your actions in
someone else's lap.

Giving birth to a child isn't a man's action.

Providing the sperm that led to conception was.

Conception doesn't get child support. Neither do sperm.

You're determined to keep using these red herrings to distract from
the issue.

The issue, Ray, is that there are laws in place now that are very anti-man.
You are never going to get the right to just walk away. So you better be
thinking about how things need to be restructured to make them equitable for
both men and women.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Relayer wrote:

Men that run around procreating at random need to be castrated.

The usual anti-sex anti-abortion extremism.

From your ultraextreme position,

The usual pro-lie smears.

Your "I should be able to have sex with anyone I want and never bear any
responsibility for MY OWN ACTIONS AND CHOICES" attitude is exactly what
brought the outrageous system we have in place today into existence,
Ray.

MEN DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN! It's not a man's action that
results in a child.

Your perverse notion that men MUST pay for sex is demeaning to women
and insulting to men.

I've never said that, Ray. Never!

So you agree that men SHOULD be able to have as much consensual sex as
they like? Then why are you asking me?

No, Ray, I don't. That is irresponsible. Are you a teenager who feels that
the world must adjust itself to your needs?

"teachrmama" wrote
..........................

Let's see now: Choices following conception:

1-Mom chooses to abort. No harm, no foul
2-Mom wants child, dad doesn't. Mom raises child on her own, dad's rights
are
permanently terminated in court, at dad's request.
3-Dad wants child, mom doesn't. Same as above, but roles are reversed.
4-Neither parent wants child. Legal abandonment at qualified location.
Adoption.
5-Both parents want child. 50/50 joint custody, no $$ changes hands

How's that?
==
I'm impressed :-)

"DB" wrote
...................
Show me one case of a Child starving to death in American?
===
Well, I can give you a possible scenario:
FL child support guidelines are very high and do not consider needs of
subsequent or later
born children. Safety net programs (foodstamps. etc) are based on gross
income, not net. There is
no consideration of child support paid by the NCP nor do the CS guidelines
consider his living requirements
(rent, food, car payment, student loans, insurance, whatever). All that is
considered
is his net after taxes and other mandatory payroll deductions. These
subsequent children are at risk of
living in abject poverty so their older half-siblings can enjoy a lifestyle
based on two "merged" incomes
(mom's "available net" + dad's "available net"). These children do not
qualify for reduced lunches at school or
food stamps or any other government program which is based on gross income.
Oddly, the older wealthier children
may qualify for said programs because mom's net income is much higher than
her gross due to child support received,
while dad's net is much lower than his gross due to child support paid.
Wanna guess how I know this?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
teachrmama wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Because a man has a right to walk out at any time
because he doesn't have a uterus?

Why not? A woman does.

Your thinking is the polar opposite of
today's CS system which seems, for the most part, to automatically
give
the
children to the woman. Neither extreme is fair or equitable.

Men should have the same rights that women do.

That's right, Ray. Men and women should have rights and
responsibilities
that are equitable. Which means that BOTH should be able to make the
same
balance of choices, and BOTH should have the same set of
responsibilities.
And, in my opinion, NEITHER should be able to walk away scott free!

Then the difference is that I believe in liberty and you believe in
forced servitude.

No I don't, Ray.

"NEITHER should be able to walk away scott free!"

That's the problem I have with the current system. But I
do believe in personal responsibility.

Every time somebody starts going on about "personal responsibility"
it's always about making somebody else accept assigned responsibility.
It's never about being personally responsible.

In a perfect world, Ray, what would you say the responsibility of a man is
toward a child he provides the sperm to create?

How about asking the "child support" people that question regarding sperm
bank donors.

If we were starting over,
and women did not have the rights they have now, what would be the
responsibility of the man?

That is an unfair question since it is hypothetical.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:%gXLi.779$P06.697@trnddc05...

"teachrmama" wrote
.........................

Let's see now: Choices following conception:

1-Mom chooses to abort. No harm, no foul
2-Mom wants child, dad doesn't. Mom raises child on her own, dad's
rights are
permanently terminated in court, at dad's request.
3-Dad wants child, mom doesn't. Same as above, but roles are reversed.
4-Neither parent wants child. Legal abandonment at qualified location.
Adoption.
5-Both parents want child. 50/50 joint custody, no $$ changes hands

How's that?
==
I'm impressed :-)

Some of us don't object to financially supporting our children. What I
didn't like was the state telling me when and how much I had to pay. And,
of course, the hidden alimony in CS is another issue. If the kids mom
decides she wants to get good old dad out of the picture, there is no reason
she should profit from her unilateral decision to breakup the family. And
worse, when mom decides to run off with another man there is no logical
reason to require the dad to financially subsidize her new relationship.
The "new dad" needs to pay his fair share including supporting the kids that
come along with mom.