Posted on 12/03/2003 5:34:18 AM PST by RogerFGay
Fathers seize child agency office
20 November 2003
AMSTERDAM A group of angry fathers, who are involved in custody battles over their children, took over an office of the Dutch child protection agency Kinderbescherming on Thursday, the International Day of the Child.
Between 15 and 20 men seized control of the building in Zutphen and effectively imprisoned five staff members, Kinderbescherming spokeswoman Annette van der Hoorn said.
The men, who have been denied visitation to their children, said they had taken the drastic action on World Child Day to highlight the injustice of their situations.
They have not allowed anyone in or out of the offices and hung banners from the window of the offices.
The men have demanded the child protection agency only give advice on how custody arrangements should be made. Present legislation means that parents who breach an imposed custody arrangement forfeit their custodial rights.
The fathers have also demanded a meeting with Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, the mayor of Zutphen and Kinderbescherming director H. Pasman.
Van der Hoorn said the agency's staff members who were being held in the building did not appear to be in any direct danger. Staff were continuing with their work and the police were not called to the scene.
The UN designated 20 November as the International Day of the Child after the signing of an official convention on the rights of children in 1989.
Show me where it doesn't say that. You're the one trying to tell me that Roe v Wade doesn't give women the right to abort their children.
But you asked me what gives me the right to have a say over the child in a woman's body. I responded with "the same thing that says I'm financially accountable." So it's quite simple. Either I'm responsible for the child, or I'm not. Pick one.
You're responsible for it after it has been born. That's what the law says. Whether you will actually be responsible is up to you.
And save your heartless drivel about "after the child is born" for Law & Order. I'm interested in fair, consistent legal interpretations - not to mention the well being of every child, not just the convenient ones.
I'm interested in what the law currently mandates. As things stand, you do not have the right to decide whether your partner carries a child to term or not. You are financially responsible for it as soon as it comes out of her body...as a conservative this shouldn't be difficult for you to understand, and I would assume that you would be married to the mother of your children. If I'm giving you too much credit, please let me know. If you're not married to the mother of your children and if you want visitation or joint custody, you are financially responsible for those children. Period. If you don't like the law, don't whine to me. Change it yourself.
You've assumed I've had an abortion. I haven't. I'm clever enough to avoid unwanted pregnancies, thank you very much. Must have been that non abstinence-based sex ed I had in school.
OK, is this directed to me? If so, why?
I said "I never said that. Cut and paste where I said that and show it to me. Show me where I said exactly that. Otherwise, stop putting words in my mouth" in response to this from you:
"In other words it's ok to sue a man for child support but refuse him custody of the child in your view."
Now, you are claiming that the following exchange means that I said it's ok to sue a man for child support but refuse him custody of his child:
Coop said: As a parent, I have every right to ensure the life and safety of my child.
I said: Only after it has been born.
Coop said: So the woman can permanently deny the father custody by killing the child (excuse me, by exercising her "choice"), but you expect the man to fulfill his financial obligations if it's convenient for the woman.
Now...I don't know what language YOU'RE using...it resembles English, but it can't be the same English I speak.
I never said that. Cut and paste where I said that and show it to me. Show me where I said exactly that.
Here:
What makes you think that you have the right to determine the future of a child growing in someone else's body?
They have to be partly responsible...it takes two, unless you believe that immaculate conception mumbo-jumbo
Nope, not what I said.
That's true. I didn't say "sh*#," "f**%" or any other of your presumably preferred words in my post. My apologies.
I brought it up because I feel it's sexist for women to be able to have 100% decision in the choice of killing their kid. If the father wants to keep the kid, the woman should not be allowed to kill it. Many women who get abortions don't want to take personal responsibility for their actions prior to pregnancy but certainly feel a man is responsible for child support if she keeps it. There is little fairness towards men on parental issues but yet the major sex based groups out there are women fighting for their rights. I simply do not understand this when it's the men who should be fighting for THEIR rights.
You mean they SHOULD have. Our current(since the 60's) liberal legal system corked with Senate fillabusters is setting the laws in the nation through judicial fiat. It's unconstitutional for the courts to make all of the laws and then tell Congress that they cannot have a say in it since the Constitution itself gives all powers to create law to the Congress. I have 4 Supreme Court Justices to back me up on that issue.
Every man should have to accept that responsiblity. As per Bill O'Reilly, personal responsibility in this nation is just an abstract thought.
It's bad enough for judges to dictate how we raise our children. We don't need Congress doing it as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.