Runnin from Custodial Parent

"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
t...
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.

There are indeed.

You are never going to get the right to just walk away.

Why not?

So you better be
thinking about how things need to be restructured to make them equitable
for
both men and women.

It CANNOT be equitable so long as women are allowed to walk away and
men are not.

Then that should be part of the restructuring, Ray. You can't just
destroy
the existing system without having something in place to fill the gap.

Why not?

Otherwise the ensuing chaos will bring about an even more evil system.

What "chaos"? Laws are changed all the time. People adapt.

Wow. You got it! LAWS ARE CHANGED!! Good boy!! We need to get the laws
changed. Change the current system. How do you plan to help with that,
Ray.


Didn't you take any sort of political science courses in school?

It's a shift that's been in progress for decades as women become more
independant and able to fund their own choices. The only change
needed is to deny women the right to make other people pay for their
unilateral choices. That's a change that would affect only a few
people.

And what about the men who want to be a part of the lives of the children
they helped create, Ray? Do they get told "Tough luck. You're a man. You
weren't the one who was pregnant." My husband was devastated when he found
out that he had an almost-13-year-old daughter, and had never been a part of
her life--and never would be, because she lived in a different state, and
his parental rights had been terminated. (But not his responsibility to
provide support, of course) Would you sell all these men down the river
just so you can screw indisriminately with no consequence?

"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

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.

Why is it irresponsible to have sex?!?

It is irresponsible to risk bringing children into the world that will not
be supported when simply wearing a condom will prevent that the majority
of
the time.

How many times do I have to explain this fact to you:
MEN DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN THAT THEY WON'T SUPPORT.

It is not men that are being irresponsible.

One simple little step, and you won't have to worry about being
nabbed for child support.

Bull****. There are many ways women can sabotage the use of condoms.
You're just insisting that men be required to protect women from their
bad choices.

Feeling that you have the "right" to have
unprotected sex because you are a man and cannot get pregnant is
irresponsible.

And so you AGAIN insist that men must be made responsible for
women's choices.

Are you a teenager who feels that
the world must adjust itself to your needs?

So far you're the one suggesting that men be forced to pay for women's
needs. Not me.

Actually, Ray, go back and read it again. I have NEVER said that.

Look back to the previous paragraph.

And you show me where in that paragraph I said anything about men being
required to provide support. I said that having unprotected sex knowing
full well that it could lead to pregnancy and you have no intention of ever
supporting a child is selfish and irresponsible. You need to think of
others, not just your own wants and needs.

On Sep 30, 9:48?pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
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.

I am not anti-sex Ray.

You just want to mutilate people that have sex in ways that you don't
approve of.

I have 5 children.

Apparently YOU are the one who needed to have been castrated.

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.

No, you're a violent asshole with a failed marriage.

--
Ray Fischer


Violent? huh?

Suck my dick

"DB" wrote

"Relayer" wrote in

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.


So because you have a bigger wallet than most, that makes you a man?

Dumb Ass is more like it!
==
I dunno--According to his posts on the Social Security group I lurk at, he's
been twice married, has 2 or 3 kids (still minors) and is living on
disability.
Go figure. Damn, I hate to think folks lie on here. Is nothing sacred?
Maybe that's a different "Relayer," and they just happen to have the same
email address.

"Robert" wrote in

This insane CS system is directly responsible for my immigration status!

Oh, really explain how they forced you to come here, knock up a dumb
ass native girl.

Who said I knocked up Native girl, more like she traveled abroad and ****ed
one of the natives!

Now she wants money, nothing else!


God you are an ignorant American!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:34:24 -0700, "DB" wrote:


"Robert" wrote in

You don't have to worry about me , I'll be deported soon for this
horrendous
crime and I'll lose everything and any future I had in this country. Not
to
worry though, Mother and child are doing fine!

In addition to your other short comings you are a illegal alien?

This insane CS system is directly responsible for my immigration status!

Oh, really explain how they forced you to come here, knock up a dumb
ass native girl. Who finally decided she wasn't your ****ing slave,
kicked your worthless ass out, and got CS, which macho you refuse to
pay. Too damn bad they don't drop you in your home country from 30,000
ft. .
Had I enough money, I could pay their ransom and be done with it.
In America, justice is only for those that can afford it!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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. That's the problem I have with the current system.
But
I
do believe in personal responsibility. Liberty does not mean
getting
to
do
whatever you want whenever you want to do it. Without personal
responsibility, and a system of laws that keeps us safe from those
who
feel
their freedom to do as they please should not be hampered by other
people's
liberties, there is no true freedom. Responsibility is a big part
of
that
equation!!

That's absolutely correct. And guess what; no rights means NO
responsibilies. It's that simple.

I agree. That is what is wrong with the system. But it is not going
to
be
fixed by saying that men do not have any responsibilities as far as
creating
children is concerned.

You JUST contradicted yourself.

It is going to be fixed by giving men and women
EQUAL rights and responsibilities.

Explain how a man can have EQUAL post-conception rights.

In the current system it might not be possible.
In a fair system:

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
arepermanently terminated in court, at dad's request.
3-Dad wants child, mom doesn't. Same as above, but roles are reversed.

So you advocate forced gestation and parenthood upon the woman? Hardly
sounds fair let alone equal.

4-Neither parent wants child. Legal abandonment at qualified location.
Adoption.
5-Both parents want child. 50/50 joint custody, no $$ changes hands

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
newspOLi.385$R%1.339@trndny06...

"Relayer" wrote
....................
Men that run around procreating at random need to be castrated.
Sick
of supporting their deadbeat asses.
==
Actually, women who run around procreating at random, without the
slightest contemplation of
the kind of father they might be procreating with, are costing us
far
more
than men who do
same. Just about every CP who pops in here wanting pity has no
problem
disclosing that they had
sex with "abusive deadbeats" as if it's some kind of badge of
honor.
And...they do all this while whining that
they are the "victim" of said man. Women that weak, clueless, and
incapable deserve their lot.

Unfortunately, our current system defends their right to do what
they
are
doing. If the irresponsible women AND the irresponsible men were
all
"fixed," our tax dollars could be spent on something that is far
more
important--and just about anything is more important than supporting
silly,
whining, self-centered people who create innocent children that they
rear
to
become silly, whining, self-centered people who also bleed the
system
dry.

Yet you support paying even MORE tax dollars to "fix" them. How about
eliminating welfare AND not paying to fix them? Gee, what a novel
concept..........

Quite frankly, I wouldn't pay to fix them. I would take the babies of
the
women who had no way of supporting them and give them to all the
couples
on
the adoption lists that have been waiting for years to adopt an infant.
2
problems solved.

Then you most CERTAINLY support the father "handing over" the child to
the
mother so she can adopt it from him. Either way, your suggestion removes
any
responsibility from the father.

Why would a mother (or father) need to adopt their own child, Chris?

For lack of better word, I was making reference to the father adopting "out"
rather than the mother adopting "in".

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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.

Indeed. Not to mention, paying some woman to raise her OWN children is,
plainly put, .........sick!

"Gini" wrote in message
news:u1YLi.1266$PV1.21@trndny08...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
......................

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.
==
Absolutely. It's the mandatory "lifestyle" that NCPs are required to
provide--when no other
parent (custodial parent or parents in intact relationships) is/are
required
to provide--that is
the absurdity of the system.

Even MORE absurd, is the forcing of "child support" upon a parent BEFORE
they even have an opportunity to care for the child on their own; without
the intrusion of these sick government people!