Messages By: seenfff

      I think that it should place the child's needs more than its own.

     I hate to be completely blunt, but if you are born male or female. I am afraid that is exactly what you are regardless how you look, act, or feel.
    In situations, a person is born with both. It's commonly known as a he/she.

     Then again, I generally catch the last 45 minutes of shows since I have prior commitments. Maybe Mike/Kayla is a he/she by birth and decided to try reversing the decision, which means not only isn't he supporting his children emotionally, financially, and a sense of comfortable surroundings. I would say that the change was inevitably a selfish act on his/her part. I would also state that it borders on the old saying, "what you couldn't cut it as a man, do you really think; you will cut it as a woman?" Morale of the story be who you were born to be. It's basically suicide without a corpse to bury.

        If AA is anything like Anger Management, I'll take your commit of Bryce not needing AA as pure fact. Let me tell you due to my own rough childhood; I recieved my education at the same time as Anger Management. It's called SBH Severe Behavioral Handicap. Let me tell you; it's a joke. The only constructive management is non-violent vents, and the physical and verbal simply counter the whole purpose.

      Based on what I saw and heard. I would take Bryce as an in law over Esther's father any day of the week.

      Is it safe to percieve that you're pro-choice rather than pro-life? I'm in the middle ground here. After the first trimester, I would consider abortion murder. If you're pro-life, I would think; Esther's father threatening abortion would make the grandfather more of a threat to the child than any of the other four.

      Even if Bryce doesn't gain custody, he should be allowed to visit. I am quite sure that the adoptive parents can arrange a Children's Service Worker from Human Services supervise. Although I would make sure none of the above is capable of visiting without a Children's Services case worker present.

      I did miss if the present adoptive parents undergone the background checks needed to adopt the child to begin with if not the State needs to remove that child from this situation.

          I wouldn't put much stock in statistics. Statistics are brought about by Self-Fullfilling Prophecy even optimistically 90% of the time.

         As to the topic at hand, I wouldn't object to dating an older woman. Even within my own age group, I generally approach women older than myself. I rather prefer a woman who has enough individuality not to give a flying hoot what outsiders think, and I certainly do not want to find myself in a relationship that isn't likely to be a partnership. Plain and simple. Many younger women prefer to follow rather than discuss future possibilities as a partner.

        Ironically, no one seems to bat an eyelash when a woman marries an 80 year old man who would have been about 45 when she was still in a bassinat at best in the term known as robbing the cradle, or a 45 year old man marrying an 18 year old or so on. Both are termed, robbing the cradle. Yet, this is socially acceptable. As to Kat's friend pointedly accusating that the younger men date older women for money, I'd suggest; she take a long look at women allowing themselves to rob the cradle. Isn't women dating older men for the financial stability that a younger man hasn't yet reached in his life most of the time. I find that to be a rather hypocritical thing to say.

        How about basic sex ed where they teach the differences between male and female. Males have the male organ. Females have the female organ. Meanwhile some children are born with both through the embryo's development being fed both developmental stages; therefore, the child gains both organs.

         Simple science 1 on 1. The purpose of additional research is geared to make it socially acceptable for any person to change their gender at any given time especially given medical manipulation advancement.

         Michael/Kayla openly admitted on national television that the gender change was more important than providing for his youngest daughter and son. I would wonder why the State has not stepped in, and nailed him/her for being a dad beat father. Yet, I don't think that the present laws take into account of a father changing his gender to female within family courts. As stands, many homosexual couples are not privy to child support, forced to pay child support, and so on. Therefore, I would construe that the reason Michael/Kayla is rushing this procedure has alterior motives than a mid-life crisis. Why not research how Family Court is equipped to handle the situation when it really isn't prepared to force two mothers or two fathers in regards to child support or alimuni. Simply put, this is a situation where the advancement of genetic science is ahead of the laws.
        I strongly feel that this situation is going to set a past precedant, and the show will tip off other dead beat fathers to have gender changes performed for no better reason than to nullify child support/alumini.

     I was referring to the situation. Perhaps, I should have made that much clearer. As to the word, hermaphrodite means an organism having both sexes/commonly known as genders hence he/she. Since hermaphrodites have the ability to reverse or maintain their parent's decision, they are inevitably in limbo with their gender until they make their own decision. So, until the situation is resolved by a hermaphrodite's choice, it's inevitably a simple fact that they (hermaphrodites) can change genders based on being born with both gender organs without a choice of their own.

        You're profile doesn't cover your present or past gender, so I'll deal with this as best as possible. And, through the motions.

       What you're really saying is that, you should have been honest with yourself before a child complicated the situation. When you have a child, some dreams are placed on the back burner, and others are destroyed. The child's needs come first, and you were already bonding with your daughter before she was born. If I recall, this begins shortly after the first or second trester of pregnancy. The baby can hear you.

       As to your cancer anologus, it would depend on the needs of the child at the time. Such as if your child has a condition especially potentially life threatening, you couldn't afford both; would you not choose to save your child first? I'd think so.

       The child must come first because he or she is counting on you entirely to be a mother or a father to him or her. While you could have rectified yourself and the situation would have been moot. Or, you could have avoided having children until you could correct the situation.

       I disagree about your reasons of high rate of divorce. I think that the high rate of divoce is the misconception of how a marriage works. A marriage is about two people taking the same path. Not two people merging into one. Otherwise, it becomes expected that your significant other will come to the same conclusions as yourself while you can walk the same street without coming to the very same conclusions. It is also important to be consistent to raise children with good morals, respect, and successful later in life. A child is also very impressionable. Another words, if a parent doesn't respect women, the child will grow up to not respect women either. If both parents are the same gender, they will believe; this is how it is supposed to be. Then in school, when they realize this isn't the case for all families, they will have issues. Especially, whether or not the child is attracted to the opposite gender when the parents are of the same gender. Essentially, whatever issues the parents had would work in reverse for the child. Is this a healthy situation to place a child into, which really is the heart of this particular legal debate.

        As to my original post, I virtually screamed being honest with yourself, your biology/genetics, and who you are in relationships. To lie to oneself, it is the same as committing suicide, but it won't have a corpse to bury. (Basic grammar, to lie to oneself is a prepositional phrase, and the it/it's refers to the prepositional phrase, which acts as an introductory clause.)

        As to yours, your stance is dauntment to when a person of one gender is attracted to the same gender and has the emotional attributes of the opposite gender, yet remains their gender is lieing to themselves. Therefore, they are walking corpses for remaining how they were born opposed to changing their gender to correct the inconsistancy of their chemical balances of physical biology and emotion.

        Would Michael aka Kayla pass a lie detector test? I highly doubt it. He chose to be a father three times before he set changing his gender into motion. In effect, he hasn't paid child support, yet he could afford the hormone and chemical changes while he is also gearring to make his sex change to female final. More disturbingly, the same as same gender couples are left out of the loop of child support and other conditions marriage poses; there is no legal conditions of support and alimony for a father changing to female, or at least none that I could locate.
        In short, I think this whole gender change situation involving Michael if Dr. Phil had used a lie detector test to see if Michael was attempting a loophole to avoid child support and alimony; I strongly feel that his answers would be deceptive.

     I think that Bambi needs to step back from the situation. This way she can see that her daughter and son in law are trying to include here, and they want to make sure that she understands. That, she no longer has final say in her daughters life. I would think that if this was clearly understood; things would be easier.

     As to making a threat into a promise, I wonder if she understands; she could be completely removed from the situation under premeiditated murder charges. Even if she's declared mentally ill, she would still be forced into a situation; I'm sure she'd prefer to avoid.

     In case, Bambi can read this. I would reccommend using the less violatile methods of Anger Management in this situation. It would be better to find a much better vent than one that can be considered a threat to someones well being. Which I might add verbal venting is taught in Anger Management, and many will say the first thing that pops into their head. The defining point afterwards is whether it was a verbal vent or threat by their actions. In this situation, it cannot be considered a mere vent, and it would be wise to avoid a repeat of such an incident unless you want legal entanglements as well.

Last time I check, feminine is emotion/s attributed to women. Or in more recent times referred to a woman  trapped in a man's body. Here in more politically correct terms. A female trapped in a male's body.

    Yet, if a person has more chemicals in their brain that increases speeds/rates of anger, this is considered a disorder and is treated.

    If a child has more chemicals or produces more energy than most, they are treated to reduce the energy often dubbed Hyperactive or in full Hyper Active Attention Deficit Disorder.

    Then, there's the complicated legal issues involving insane/genious and so on.

    So, if you want me to provide a research paper and my sources, are you really prepared for an extremely rude awakening in regards to the emotional entanglements and attraction based through science, or is it better to use the knowledge I gained from looking things up that I never aimed to use to create a research paper on because it contradicts my own views, morals, and beliefs as a whole.

    As to posting without the full facts of any given situation presented on the Dr. Phil Show, Other posters have stated quite well that we are not privy to the full facts; by your own words, these message boards serves no purpose meanwhile it is meant to state our own opinions. At the very least, as rude and unsensitive in other posters eyes, I may be; I stick to what I've said or try making my stance better understood.

     In this case from lack of emotion, general attitude, and the complete and utter disregard to his financial as well as fatherly bonds created prior to his mid-life crisis, Michael seems to be attempting to find himself into a legal loophole that not even homosexual activists are able to close through their movement. (No Gay is not politically correct as Gay means happy, and it's a situation if you can't accept yourself; I won't do it for you. It's no different than trying to call themselves the opposite sex when they have the male or female sex organs that divide whom is male or female. Considering, that is part of how I develop my views on this sort of circumstances; it is as simple as looking up the definitions of sex organs to research what gender a person is. In terms of hermaphodites, hermaphodite means having both gender organs, and this is the same as being called he/she. Especially since at 18 years old this person can either change their parents gender choice for him or her or remove one gender organ to be the other whether it is male or female.

       Since we're discussing views, my view is quite simple. All people are created equally. They have the right to choose what is best for them unless it hurts or harms another person. In Daddy Drama's case, the children are hurt, and he had ample opportunity to use a mental condom to avoid having children until either the laws are adjusted to account for a mother or father changing their gender or to make amends by attempting to maintain their bond, which inevitably in the case of a gender change is slim to nil. It's an unfortunate sacrifice, but the laws must be able to account for the situation before this situation should have ever took place. I stand that if a lie detector test was administered; the question was the gender change an attempt to fall into a legal loophole involving child support and alimony. I would imagine the test would reveal that a no answer would be deemed deceptive by a professional. If not, it still doesn't change that this loophole exists, and a good lawyer can fight for a dead beat father out of any obligation of child support/alimony. There is no past precedant for this situation to my knowledge. If you have a resource in this case, I would gladly read it through.

1) He is working towards getting his act together, and Bryce is 100% correct about calling 911 in an emergency. Not everyone in the world has the ability to drive, so the DUI's would only play a part most likely if it becomes a problem. A single to 3 relapses will narrow the issue, but it won't entirely disable his ability as a father.

2) He doesn't have the ability to be a part of his child's life, so it's nearly impossible to say with any kind of evidence of his parenting skills. However, the fact that he is doing what he can speaks volumes especially compared to fathers who do nothing and can.

3) When you have a child, things change. Some people are slower at recieving the bodies biological chemical changes than others. In essence, just because you're a mature adult when you became pregnant doesn't translate into a great father/mother. What chemical changes can't do is teach you to be a good parent. Good Parenting is dominantly learned while the acceptance and determination to be a good parent is often a matter of biology.

        To answer the indirectly age question, I'm afraid that I'm 27. Just for future reference, I am notoriously literal. Are you saying that even through hermaphodite only refers to an organism with both gender organs that he/she is essentially equal to a racial slur even though they mean the same thing, and most racial slurs are used improperly everyday?

        In your particular situation, there's no legal issues arising from the change, and it sounds like you've definitely worked with your family to either enforce the present bond or made an equilivent to the one already in place.

       In Kayla's situation, there is. I agree that she dropped the ball, and the point isn't dead in the black of deliberate legal avoidance. The point is that the law isn't equipped, which is problematic in more ways than one.

      In any situation similar to this one, there's indirect issues that if I was within those communities; I would be paying close attention to the outcome. And, if I was classified as a dead beat dad, you'd be amazed to the lengths someone will go to avoid losing 70% of their wages between alimony and child support.

      As a matter of principle, I cannot view the ability to perform a gender change as a medical issue. I have to consider it a choice even though I'm not an advocate for an indrectly linked issue to this ordeal. That, if I was within, I would be paying close attention to this delimma. This really has to be considered a freedom of choice and protected by civil rights; otherwise, there's a major issue in the future. Unless my initial attempt to your earlier post was accidently sent prior to being finished, it occurred to me if I'm wrong and it's not already in play. Why give antagonist to an indrect issue a medical standing? Another words why give the opposition a near full proof idea...