From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:18:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Sep3.132526.15832@ultb.isc.rit.edu> kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.214526.28552@u.washington.edu> 
>hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>>>   Sex is good -- unless it's forced.
>>>   Money for the home is good -- unless it's forced.
>>>   I am outraged that you advocate force (rape) as
>>>   a valid way of accruing child support when
>>>   their are so many better ways to support
>>>   the child.
>
>Mr. EuStress, who will support your child if you won't?  I understand your
>outrage at being taxed (you must be one of those "taxation is theft" believers)
>or ordered to pay child support, but you haven't shown me any alternative for
>supporting your unwanted child.  Please list for us those "so many better ways
>to support the child" that you mention so frequently.
>
>Katie

Katie, I think EuStress has told us that his ex- wants him out of the
picture completely.  She doesn't want to see or hear from him - ever
again.  She has a new Mr. Right, and new Mr. Right seems perfectly able
to support Euie's child(ren).   However, I think when ex- and new Mr.
Right found out that they could use the state to force Euie to pay for
children, while at the same time get the state to terminate his
visitation rights to his children, they opted to go that route, rather
than have new Mr. Right adopt the children.  They opted to financially
rape Euie.

The state will not allow him to voluntarily sever his ties with his
children and wants him to pay child support for children (or a child)
that he will not see.

Often, new husbands want to adopt the children of previous marriages and
support them as their own.  Often, women work quite hard to support
their children and ask no quarter from the fathers of those children -
maybe because they know that some men just can't cope with all that life
offers, and have a tough enough time just taking care of themselves.

It is not always the tax-payers who pick up the tab for children.
Often, when the tax-payers do have to pick up the tab, it is for mothers
who can sit around and eat bon-bons and watch Oprah while pumping out
babies like a baby-factory, and for every new mouth, the state gives
them more money.  The state doesn't insure that this mother spends this
money on the children.  Often, the money does not go to the children.

Now, that is the way it has been, in many cases, for a long time.
However, lots of people, including me, are tired of subsidizing crime,
stupidity, poverty, mental and emotional bankruptcy through welfare.
That's not to say that's what we are doing as a rule - just an
acknowledgement that it does happen.  If a woman won't name a father to
her child and wants to go on AFDC, then she should be rewarded for
making efforts to get off that track, and be penalized for locking
herself, and her children, into it.  If she wants AFDC, then give her
AFDC - and Norplant.  Make sure she gets no increase in support, no
matter how many children she decides to have.  Make her go back to work
ASAP and help her to further her education, if needed.  Oh, the
education part is not always a requirement.  I knew one woman on AFDC
who was valedictorian of her college class - majoring in computer
science.  She just didn't have the money to pay for this accidental
pregnancy she had while in college.  She will more than repay this
country with her taxes in her life.  No biggie.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  Katie, your response sounded a lot like the typical response to the
old story....

A man and his son are riding in a car.  The car stalls out on train
tracks and a train is coming.  The man tries frantically to restart the
car, but cannot and the train hits them.  The man is killed.

The son is taken to the hospital.  In the emergency room, the doctor
comes in and turns white.  The doctor tells everyone present, "I cannot
operate on this child - this is my son."

Who is the doctor?

When this story first made the rounds in the US a long time ago, entire
classrooms full of people would ponder this question.  One of my
teachers asked my sixth grade class this question - and we came up with
all kinds of ridiculous answers - aliens from outer space,
reincarnation, all kinds of crap.  No one could see the obvious.  We
never did get the answer - the teacher eventually told us at the end of
an hour.

Who was the doctor?

The mother was the doctor.

Euie's ex- doesn't want him involved in his children's lives.  Then you
jump in and say, "So what, big deal, but who is to pay for his
child(ren) if he will not?"

The mother is the doctor.  She wants Euie out of the child(ren)'s
life(lives), then she must be admitting to everyone that SHE is the
doctor and doesn't NEED him in their lives.

Forcing a man to pay child support for children that he will NEVER, EVER
SEE is financial rape.

If you don't think so, imagine this:  Your children are kidnapped from
you and you have to pay $1000 per month ransom for 15 years.  You
probably wouldn't like that, would you?  What if someone asked you,
"but who will pay the ransom, if you will not?  You surely don't want
to suggest that the tax-payers foot your ransom for your children (that
you will NEVER see), do you?"  Would you be offended if someone made
such a statement?
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights