|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 28, @12:32AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Baby slam dunkin' dumpster tossing mamas no longer need worry about their criminal behavior thanks to government as daddy in L.A. It is clear that our government is saying, “If a woman commits murder something is wrong and we must help here with the problems that caused her to do that, but the hell with men in CA if they have similar needs.”
Chalk another major victory up to choice for women as a result of our femicrat giver mint, where money is no object as long as it is spent on helping females.
Isn't it interesting how once again men have no say in whether they want the baby or not. I am absolutely amazed that a man falsely accused of being the father of a child must pay child support (paternity fraud), while the actual DNA mother of a child can shirk her responsibility so easily.
If government under democrats in CA is not hypocritical and corrupt in it's unequal treatment of citizens based on gender, then pigs can fly too.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are giving women the idea that husbands and children are disposable products in our society. It's brought in terms of "choice". But her choices limit everyone elses. When, during a divorce trial the mother claims "best interest of the child" and then after getting custody she does whatever she choses as HER best choice it wrong. We should have it so that after she puts up the "best interest of the child" argument than she must act that way. Denying visitation is child abuse, poisoning her child's mind against the father is child abuse, moving away can be too. I hear the wrongs about taking the child away from the mother like this:
"we can't move the child from their environment" or "we have to have stability for the child, that's why we can't remove the child from the mother". Ok, if that is the case then it goes the whole way. Neither can a mother remove the child from the father's influence. Neither can a mother defy a court order for visitation. Neither can a mother yank a child out of school and move away since the "best interests of the child" are at stake. We need to make it so that the "best interests of the child" have some common logic and theme. Not whatever the mother wants to define it as.
And this is on point for this post: leaving a child like garbage to know a substandard of living, emotional agony when the child comes of age to ask 'where is mom-how did I get left?', and acting like a mother's responsibility ends whenever the hell she chooses is NOT NOT NOT in the "best interests of the child". One standard. One set of rules that are irrovocable. No moral relativism or self justification based on selfish wants.
The law was created to serve people, not cater to children in adult bodes who want to forgo their responsibilities at whim but DEMAND culpability from others as the mood strikes.
ONE PHRASE: "BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD"
Peace
L. Steven Beene II
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
