In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, fathers wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Dan Dingeldein wrote:
> > >
> > >[Christopher -- solving the fathers' rights problem -- namely custody of 
> > >the children that fathers paid for, married for, and are the best parents 
> > >to, completely SOLVES the men's rights problem.  If men got custody of 
> > >ALL children, then women would NEVER have children out of wedlock -- and 
> > >the men themselves would be more careful about where they plant the 
> > >seed.  Women would NEVER have children with the intention of collecting 
> > >the myriad of social benefits -- AFDC, welfare, medicare, "child 
> > >support", alimony, community property, etc., because the FATHER would 
> > >have the children and society would not need to support her and would not 
> > >be sympathetic enough with the father to pay him.
> > >
> > >Abortion rights -- if the FATHER got custody, then the mother would not 
> > >have as many abortions, because the subconscious motivation to get 
> > >pregnant would be removed completely.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> > THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS DRIVING THE ILLEGITAMACY PROBLEM AND NO ONE IN
> THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE GUTS TO STAND UP AND SAY IT!!! 
> 
> > Let's be real about this. The vast majority of women identify with
> motherhood and are driven to this end. If they do not have children then
> they feel like they've failed as a woman. Not to mention all the pressure
> by the womans parents to produce grandchildren. There is no deterent other
> than the womans own convictions. If she understands the concept of adult
> responsibility then she will not have a child unless the child has a
> committed father, and will do what it takes to keep the relationship in
> tact and keep the childs relationship to the father unencumbered. 
> 
> > The child has a right and society has an obligation to insure the child
> has two loving and committed parents. Anything less is unacceptable. It is
> the childs > needs that must be protected, not the mothers "need" to have
> a child. The gov has this whole buisness turned upside down, and they
> stand in the wells of congress with their hands in the air and a look of
> puzzlement. AS IF THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!!!!! The
> constitution guarantees that no individuals rights should be compromised
> at the expense or denial of anothers. > And this is exactly what is
> written into Family Law Statutes in almost every state! 
> 
> 
> > Reforming this system requires dismantling $300 billion dollar(a
> conservative number at best!) cash transfer payments and threatening a
> powerful political constituency that drives the perpetuation of present
> policy. You can bet your life lies, deceit and outright bribery are in
> full force here. It's gonna take an all out war and some casualties to
> change what`s going on. As long as the govenors are getting kickbacks fron
> the feds (a percentage of CS collected for their general funds) and from
> the ABA (ie the legal costs at the expense of NCP's and igoring
> constitutional law) there will be no change without an all out > revolt.
> The only question is what form this revolt will take. We're getting very
> close to having a concerted and focused effort. We need to co-ordinate a
> full force onslaught against this tyranny. Can this boycott stuff and
> start some kind of focused attack at the source, THE SUPREME COURT!!! >
> More later... 
> 
> 
> > 					DAN D
> > 
> 
> 
> DAN!! Tell it like it is!  Let's hear more NOW!!  EVERYONE on this forum
> has seen and heard the horror stories, and we KNOW without question that
> legislators, the Supreme Court, the Prez, lawyers, judges, even clerks ARE
> NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION! You can complain to them until you
> are out of breath and patience -- but they ENJOY the power of crippling
> fatherhood. 
> 
> NOBODY disagrees with this assessment?! Boycotts are going make us feel
> like we are doing something -- while our own children grow up fatherless. 
> Marches are going to make the legislators giggle and hurl epithets, while
> they torpedo simple little things like AB180.  Internet debates are going
> to provide us the information we need, but they aren't SO FAR solving the 
> root problem.
> 
> So WHO wants to solve the problem, NEEDS to solve the problem, CAN solve 
> the problem, and SHOULD solve the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> FATHERS!  Nobody else.  How?  Wes says "take back the children!"
> 
> 
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Feb 20 01:12:46 1996