17
   

Child Support as Politics.

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:12 am
@DrewDad,
Which begs the question of why you keep responding on this thread... but ok.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:24 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

If I follow the argument correctly....

If a man has sex with a woman, and does not exercise his ability to use birth control, and she becomes pregnant, she then has the power to "force" him to become a parent.


It's not my argument, but I think that's what the usual suspects are saying. I've only had unprotected sex twice, and I've got two beautiful kids that I'm really happy with as a result. I've been responsible, nobody is asking me for child maintenance.

If Hawkeye has problems finding condoms in his size he should consult a doctor.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:26 am
@maxdancona,
It's not a double standard, the woman gives birth, it's her body. She should have the final say over what happens to her body. Irresponsible men should stop whining and stick something on it.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:31 am
@izzythepush,
The double standard is about choice. Should a young adult who has had sex which led to a pregnancy have the choice about whether to become a parent or not?

The biology might explain why the double standard is necessary, but it doesn't stop it from being a double standard.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:32 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I've only had unprotected sex twice, and I've got two beautiful kids that I'm really happy with as a result. I've been responsible, nobody is asking me for child maintenance.

Exactly. It's like they never heard of "personal responsibility."
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:33 am
@maxdancona,
If the young adult chooses to have unprotected sex the young adult should face the consequences of their actions. When I was a young adult I had plenty of sex, but I always took precautions.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:35 am
@izzythepush,
I don't know about America, but you can get free condoms over here at any family planning centre.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:39 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The biology might explain why the double standard is necessary, but it doesn't stop it from being a double standard.

Yeah. Like how I can choose to get something off of the top shelf, but my wife has to use a step stool or ask me for help.

We need to legislate things to eliminate height inequality, because it's such a double standard....




P.S. You keep using that phrase, "double standard." It doesn't mean what you think it means. Someone having a choice that is not available to you is not a double standard.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:49 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

It's not a double standard, the woman gives birth, it's her body. She should have the final say over what happens to her body. Irresponsible men should stop whining and stick something on it.

This has morphed into a very interesting discussion. I do think it is a double standard and you just illustrated it. You could equally say irresponsible women should stop whining and stop allowing men to have unprotected sex with them. Women seem to be viewed as "victims" of an unintended pregnancy, men as the perpetrators.

The double standard comes about in that two adults commit an act with exactly equal levels of responsibility and should a child be born and kept, both adults will be held financially responsible for the upkeep of the child, but only one adult feels the physical and economic impact of the pregnancy and therefore gets to make a series of crucial decisions that impact both of the parties. The woman decides to abort or deliver and if the latter to keep or put up for adoption. The man can clearly argue that both of these decisions have profound impacts on his life but he gets no say in either and while the discussion has centered around money, it could clearly go the other way in that the man might feel that his child should not be aborted even if the mother insists (I read one case about this several years ago) or that he should be able to stop an adoption. The adoption case is a very interesting case of a double standard although I might not understand the law correctly. If the man wants the child to be put up for adoption and the woman does not, the man is on the hook for child support as I understand it. If the woman wants to put the child up for adoption and the man does not, he can take custody of the child as a parent, but the woman is not financially responsible. Is that correct?

All that said, I don't have any solutions. That the woman bears the burden of the physical pregnancy and the resulting physical and economic impacts while the man does not is unavoidable. To me that gives her wishes significantly higher consideration during the pregnancy. If she chooses to abort, I wouldn't ever say that the man has the right to override that decision. On keeping versus adoption, I think it is much more murky. If the man could show that he doesn't have the means to support the child and he would like to put him up for adoption, should the woman have to agree to be completely financially liable if she chooses to keep him? Does the man even have to show any evidence or just state a preference for adoption as women can? I don't know the answer to those questions.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 09:06 am
Quote:
If the man wants the child to be put up for adoption and the woman does not, the man is on the hook for child support as I understand it. If the woman wants to put the child up for adoption and the man does not, he can take custody of the child as a parent, but the woman is not financially responsible. Is that correct?


That is incorrect.

I know two women who did just that -- wanted an abortion, father wanted baby, woman had baby, father raises it -- both women pay child support.
JP Cusick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 10:56 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

The courts aren't in the parenting business. They are in the business of ensuring that parents don't abuse parenting.

That's not to say, of course, that the court system is perfect. It isn't.


Using the Courts to rule over parents and over parenting as is done with the Child Support and Custody laws is like fixing a TV set with a base ball bat.

It is true that a base ball bat will work some times as so does the Courts do right in some cases, but more often they do more harm and makes matters worse.

Both the federal gov and each State Legislatures were confronted with societal break down aspects as in massive divorce rates and huge numbers of single parents and a large population of children on Public Assistance programs, so the feds and the States empowered the parenting laws (Child Support & Custody) and they used the one weapon of government which is they used the Courts against the parents - which is equivalent to using a base ball bat to fix a delicate problem, and now the mess up is even worse and growing.

It use to be that the gov was not in the parenting business of Custody and Child Support and visitation, etc, but now it is done because our laws have violated the old authority of religion.

Such things as marriage, parenting, divorce, raising children, were in the domain of Churches and Synagogs and Temples until our gov violated the old Institutions of religion, so now the State Courts are playing God with our society and with families and the Courts are not fit to be playing God.

The intent of Courts and of laws were to be for controlling violent crimes and criminals, just as most Judges are former Prosecutors, and it is a deep mistake to imagine that the Court know what is best for children and for their parents.

Instead what we have is a confused and incompetent mess with the divorce industry and Child Support and Custody laws which has turned parents into criminals and turned parenting into a crime.

I say we need to stop this ignorant process, and I am the one and only candidate for any political office who will get the reforms started.

Drunk
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 10:58 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

That is incorrect.

I know two women who did just that -- wanted an abortion, father wanted baby, woman had baby, father raises it -- both women pay child support.

That's a fair system then. Thanks for the correction. Did the mother ok not having the abortion or did the fathers' wishes somehow compel the women to have the baby?
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:00 am
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:
Such things as marriage, parenting, divorce, raising children, were in the domain of Churches and Synagogs and Temples until our gov violated the old Institutions of religion, so now the State Courts are playing God with our society and with families and the Courts are not fit to be playing God.


I hope you are not suggesting that churches/synagogues/temples et al are going to have any say in the administration of family justice.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:16 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Don't be ridiculous, if you don't want to become a parent either use contaception or abstain from sex. I fail to see how a man can become a parent against his will if he follows those two simple rules


Sorry contaception is hardly full proof and we also have the problem of the women lying about being protected and not being so.

An if women do not wish to raised children on their own or have an abortions they can then have sex only with men who had express a willingness to father children with them or not have sex at all just like your suggested for men.
0 Replies
 
JP Cusick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:28 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

I took this example from your website
So in essence you're saying that if the child support paying parent is
sick and cannot meet his/her salary, then the child support has to be lowered accordingly, all the while the kid(s) still need to be fed and
clothed, despite the parent being unable to work full time for whatever
reason. Is this fair to the children who are bereaved of their well being?

Poor parents have poor children, so if the parent loses money or loses time from work or gets fired or sick or whatever then the children are subject to the condition of their parents.

In China they have laws of only one (1) child per couple (2 parents) so we have laws that punish poor parents for having poor children. As if it is illegal for poor parents to have poor children because our laws will imprison the parents or force them into a debt servitude of Court ordered Child Support.

The parent getting sick or under-employed has absolutely nothing to do with fairness to their children.

And if the family has any real unmet needs then that is why we have Welfare and Public Assistance programs - to help the poor and needy citizens.
CalamityJane wrote:

Which brings me to my next question: have you ever considered the
additional government workforce that would be needed in determining who was sick/unable to meet their full child support obligations at one
time or another in order to lower their support payments? It will cost
you twice as much in labor cost if not more.

We do not need any more gov enforcement personnel, and we would be better off considering how much money we could save by stopping the Courts and police and jail cost in the enforcement of the Child Support orders.

According to the Wikipedia report it says that the Child Support Industry is some $500 Billion dollars huge, and State governments may collect $2 from the Federal Treasury for every $1 collected from non custodial parent, link HERE, so we could give real help and assistance to poor families for that $500 billion instead of using that huge amount of cash to attack and pillage American parents.

CalamityJane wrote:

We're not finished though: what about the parent who is out the
child support money due to lesser support payments? What if they cannot
feed their children, what if they cannot pay the rent, what if they cannot
pay their children's healthcare payments?

Have you allocated enough funds for the state of Maryland to support
these families who will be negatively affected by your child support plan?
Have you?

It's like you wanting to bake a cake with only 2 ingredients - a recipe
for disaster!!

Having "Custody" really must mean providing the custody, so if the custodial can not afford to provide all the child's needs then they have no business being given the custody.

If one parent has the money and the other parent has the child, then that is mixed up, because custody needs to go to the one with the money. That is if our one true concern is truly in supporting the child and not to punish the parent.

Shocked
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:49 am
@JP Cusick,
I strongly suggest that you base your campaign on allowing people to auction their children.

a) The child would be removed from the home that fails to provide for him/her.
b) The child would be placed in a higher income environment, which, apparently, is always better.
c) The government could tax the sale.

win/win/win
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 12:01 pm
@JP Cusick,
Quote:
We must wonder where such an idea comes from, as it surely must have been the 11th commandment which God forgot to write in stone.



It may not have been written on the ten commandments to the children Israel, but the command for fathers to provide for their children is written in the bible.

1 Timothy 5:8

The issue of choice is a separate issue than the issue of responsibility for the children after they are born. It is just a biological fact that men cannot carry children.

Unless someone forced a man to have relations with a woman, then any children resulting from that act is both participants responsibility. If you don't want to have to pay, don't play.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 12:04 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Which begs the question of why you keep responding on this thread... but ok.


It might raise the question, but it does not beg the question.

http://begthequestion.info/
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 12:20 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
It might raise the question, but it does not beg the question.


In total defiance of reality, we get yet another idiotic pedant, sourcing another idiotic pedant, both of whom obviously do not understand how English works.

=======================

http://able2know.org/topic/176881-1

Post: # 4,720,057

Quote:
Please help me understand what TO BEG THE QUESTION means. I have looked it up and understand it is greatly misused, but I don't understand the explanation of what it means.


No, you're not slow, Janinerine, but these pedants surely are though.

"greatly misused", what utter nonsense. Words, phrases and idioms mean what speakers of English say they mean. There are thousands of words and idioms whose meanings have changed over the centuries and these pedants aren't whining about those changes.

The most common meaning for 'beg the question' is 'raises the question' or 'demands that that question be asked'.

Doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, ... all have special meanings for words that are not used in everyday language.


Quote:
The meaning you give is the newest. [ie. "to raise a question"] It is gaining ground, and one or two recent dictionaries claim that it is now acceptable - the New Oxford Dictionary of English, for example, says it is “widely accepted in modern standard English”.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm


Quote:

Oxford

beg the question
1 (of a fact or action) raise a point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question:
some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behaviour
2 assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/beg?view=uk



Quote:
beg the question
If a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question
Spending the summer travelling round India is a great idea, but it does rather beg the question of how we can afford it.
To discuss the company's future begs the question whether it has a future.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/beg-the-question
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 12:33 pm
@JP Cusick,
JP Cusick wrote:
Having "Custody" really must mean providing the custody, so if the custodial can not afford to provide all the child's needs then they have no business being given the custody.


So for example, if the custodial mother is unable to provide for the child
due to the financial negligence of the biological father, then she has no
business being given custody. Where else would the kid go to? The non paying, dead beat father? Foster Care? What do you have in mind by saying such a statement?

JP Cusick wrote:
If one parent has the money and the other parent has the child, then that is mixed up, because custody needs to go to the one with the money. That is if our one true concern is truly in supporting the child and not to punish the parent. Shocked


So it is your belief that the child needs to be with the parent who has the
financial capabilities to provide for the child? In most cases this happens
to be the father, the one who doesn't want to take responsibility for his
children and the one who you are siding with when advocating for lesser child support payments.

Good luck with your election!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 05:57:31