Comments on: Best Interest Of A Child http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/ Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights Wed, 16 May 2012 22:30:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2650 Kevin Merck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:41:40 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2650 For some reason my computer won’t allow these links to post. Just add one / to each address preceding the www. Be prepared to lose some sleep, that is, if you have a conscience. http:/www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http:/www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html For some reason my computer won’t allow these links to post. Just add one / to each address preceding the www. Be prepared to lose some sleep, that is, if you have a conscience.

http:/www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http:/www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2643 Kevin Merck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:16:09 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2643 Whose best interests? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html Kevin Merck Whose best interests?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2642 Kevin Merck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:14:41 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2642 Whose best interests? 35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count. I wonder why? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html Kevin Merck Whose best interests?

35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count.

I wonder why?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2641 Kevin Merck Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:08:13 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2641 Whose best interests ? 35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count. I wonder why? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit Kevin Merck Whose best interests ?

35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count.

I wonder why?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2638 Kevin Merck Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:25:45 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2638 Best interests of whom? 35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count. I wonder why? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit Kevin Merck Best interests of whom?

35,000,000 total abortions shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count.

I wonder why?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2636 Kevin Merck Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:28:53 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2636 The 35,000,000 number shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count. I wonder why? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit Kevin Merck The 35,000,000 number shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count.

I wonder why?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2630 Kevin Merck Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:09:08 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2630 Note: The 35,000,000 number shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count. I wonder why? http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit Kevin Merck Note:

The 35,000,000 number shown in the first link is just the most “conservative estimate” as of March 2000. The people who advocate for these abortions try desperately to minimize the death count.

I wonder why?

http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

Kevin Merck

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2524 Kevin Merck Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:03:53 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2524 1,500,000 children are murdered every year in just the United States alone. There have been a total of 50,000,000 murdered in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade and most of these murders were carried out using our tax dollars. Anyone capable of murdering a helpless child that grows inside their body is capable of just about anything. If as a society, we choose not to protect the rights of innocent children, we establish a precedent that will ultimately affect us all. 1,500,000 children are murdered every year in just the United States alone. There have been a total of 50,000,000 murdered in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade and most of these murders were carried out using our tax dollars.

Anyone capable of murdering a helpless child that grows inside their body is capable of just about anything. If as a society, we choose not to protect the rights of innocent children, we establish a precedent that will ultimately affect us all.

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2495 Kevin Merck Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:57:50 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2495 “Best interest of a child” If all the people who make their living telling us what that is, really knew what it was, then why are our children such a mess? I think most children would probably know the answer to that question. It seems the only people trying to ignore the “best interests of children” are the very people who make their living pretending to know what it is. The industry that has developed over the last forty years, that’s supposed to be operating in the “best interests of our children”, has become the lifeblood of literally millions of people. Millions of car loans, mortgages, credit card payments and all the rest, and it all hinges on what’s in the “best interests of our children”. None of these people have the power to stop this insanity, even if they wanted to. Guess who has the power? It sure isn’t the children. Who does that leave? http://www.indianacrc.org/FOIA.html “Best interest of a child”

If all the people who make their living telling us what that is, really knew what it was, then why are our children such a mess? I think most children would probably know the answer to that question. It seems the only people trying to ignore the “best interests of children” are the very people who make their living pretending to know what it is.

The industry that has developed over the last forty years, that’s supposed to be operating in the “best interests of our children”, has become the lifeblood of literally millions of people. Millions of car loans, mortgages, credit card payments and all the rest, and it all hinges on what’s in the “best interests of our children”.

None of these people have the power to stop this insanity, even if they wanted to.

Guess who has the power? It sure isn’t the children. Who does that leave?

http://www.indianacrc.org/FOIA.html

]]> By: Kevin Merck http://ancpr.com/2007/03/05/best-interest-of-a-child/#comment-2442 Kevin Merck Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:28:26 +0000 http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/471#comment-2442 Equal protection under the law means that people are treated the same under the law regardless of race, religion or “gender”. In the case of an unmarried couple, a mother can give a child up for adoption, and even if the biological father is awarded custody of the child in question, he is not able to force the mother to pay him child support. The mother, by giving the child up for adoption, forfeits any “rights and responsibilities” for the child. Again, “equal protection” means if we allow a mother to give a child up for adoption, and not require her to pay support, even if the child is given to the biological father, then we cannot force a father who chooses to give a child up for adoption, to pay support, even if the child remains with its mother. - That is the law - The fact that our courts choose to ignore the law, is a completely different matter. To say that it’s in the “best interests of the child” to force a man to pay support for a child he doesn’t want to father is ludicrous. It’s crystal clear whose interests are being served in these arrangements, when you consider the profiteering going on in the child support industry. A man has the “absolute right” to father, or not father, as he sees fit. That is what the “contract of marriage” is all about. Hundreds of years of legal precedent establish that the mother of a child born out of wedlock has “absolutely” no claim on the father, nor does the “illegitimate” child. The only way we are going to cut down on the number of children born out of wedlock is to take the profit motive out of it. When a single female can no longer demand child support from the father, or welfare from the citizens, and our courts are cut off from the “matching federal dollars” for forcing child support awards, we will see a “drastic decline” in unwed pregnancies virtually overnight. In the case of divorcing married couples, both parents should be awarded custody, each bearing responsibility for their own finances, unless some other arrangement is agreed to by the parties involved. The Government needs to keep their noses out of our personal lives. It all seems very straightforward to me. The only time it gets confusing, is when you try to justify forced servitude, by calling it taking responsibility. Kevin Merck Equal protection under the law means that people are treated the same under the law regardless of race, religion or “gender”.

In the case of an unmarried couple, a mother can give a child up for adoption, and even if the biological father is awarded custody of the child in question, he is not able to force the mother to pay him child support. The mother, by giving the child up for adoption, forfeits any “rights and responsibilities” for the child.

Again, “equal protection” means if we allow a mother to give a child up for adoption, and not require her to pay support, even if the child is given to the biological father, then we cannot force a father who chooses to give a child up for adoption, to pay support, even if the child remains with its mother.

– That is the law –

The fact that our courts choose to ignore the law, is a completely different matter. To say that it’s in the “best interests of the child” to force a man to pay support for a child he doesn’t want to father is ludicrous. It’s crystal clear whose interests are being served in these arrangements, when you consider the profiteering going on in the child support industry.

A man has the “absolute right” to father, or not father, as he sees fit. That is what the “contract of marriage” is all about. Hundreds of years of legal precedent establish that the mother of a child born out of wedlock has “absolutely” no claim on the father, nor does the “illegitimate” child.

The only way we are going to cut down on the number of children born out of wedlock is to take the profit motive out of it. When a single female can no longer demand child support from the father, or welfare from the citizens, and our courts are cut off from the “matching federal dollars” for forcing child support awards, we will see a “drastic decline” in unwed pregnancies virtually overnight.

In the case of divorcing married couples, both parents should be awarded custody, each bearing responsibility for their own finances, unless some other arrangement is agreed to by the parties involved. The Government needs to keep their noses out of our personal lives.

It all seems very straightforward to me. The only time it gets confusing, is when you try to justify forced servitude, by calling it taking responsibility.

Kevin Merck

]]>