Child Support as Politics.

@JP Cusick,

JP Cusick wrote:

In China they have laws of only one (1) child per couple (2 parents)

the laws in China are not that simple. There are regional variations as well as exceptions for small ethnic groups. Some couples may have a second child if their first child is a girl. Gotta stay ahead of the knowledge of the voters out there.

Child custody and support is also not simple. It is not one approach fits all families.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Did the mother ok not having the abortion or did the fathers' wishes somehow compel the women to have the baby?

I visit some adoption forums populated by all sides of the issue. Most young birth mothers know that they are setting themselves up for a lifetime of pain but that's easier to face than aborting their child. (The pre Roe v. Wade birth moms all wish they'd had the option and are sure they would have taken it.)

Mo's other mom is one of the women I know. She didn't want to parent (Mo was already living with us by this time). She and the father went to get an abortion but he had a change of heart and they left to think it over. He decided he wanted the baby. She agreed to give birth and pay child support if he would parent.

I was better friends with the dad in the other situation and I don't really know what went down between him and the mother. I knew that he wanted the baby and she didn't. I know she paid child support.

I think even women who are relieved that they were able to get an abortion are not happy with the fact that they did it. They don't really regret getting one but they'd have loved not being in the situation where they got one. Knowing what we now know about fetal development makes it even harder.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Dear Max.

I'd like to express my sincere apologies for attempting to run you down by employing a prescription, one which I obviously know nothing about. But then that's always the case with prescriptions, isn't it?

I heard this old canard somewhere and brainless gorm that I am, I thought it would be cool to use it on someone someday. It wasn't cool at all. It was, as I've discovered, just plain dumb.

Sincerely,
DrewDad

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

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?

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.

I do not believe the children need to be placed with the parent who has the most money, but my point in saying that is that "if" if the State Courts were really concerned with providing the "custody" of the children then they would give the custody to the parent with the best financial capacity.

My point was to show the untruth of the Child Support and the hypocrisy of the system, but not to give my own belief in that claim.

What I do believe is that the full task of parenting is the reserved duty of the 2 parents and everyone else is interfering, so the laws and the Courts are way out of line.

And I certainly do not believe that the mother has some superior claim to the child which some how excludes or over rules the child's father.

And if the child is in any need then the Custodial has a duty to seek out Public Assistance or family or Church or other assistance to fill the need, but no one has any right to steal or to live off of stolen loot as in the Court ordered Child Support.

Shocked

1 Reply

@JP Cusick,

Have I got this straight?

You don't believe the government should be involved in parenting?

You believe the government should be responsible (via public assistance) in parenting? (Are you running on the Socialist ticket?)

You are running for government office with the hope of passing laws about parenting because you don't think that government should be involved in parenting?

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

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 Bible text of "1 Timothy 5:8" is fine for aspiring Christians but it is not a basis for laws which attack and degrade parents.

To call a parent as an "infidel" based on that text is okay, but to slander a parent as a deadbeat base on a Court order is not okay.

And even if you or others view the parents as sinners and infidels and deniers of the faith, then that does not give you or anyone else a justifiable reason to rob and steal and imprison the misbehaving parents.

What we truly need to do is promote ways and means of reuniting the parents with their children, and of encouraging the 2 parents to reunite, instead of the divorce laws of Child Support and Custody which make people like your self to feel better while destroying the families involved.

revelette wrote:

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.

Just for the record - I myself do not agree with having an abortion except in cases of extreme desperate need, so I do not want anyone to push or even to suggest an abortion for any pregnancy.

I say to have the baby whether the law or anyone else likes it or not.

revelette wrote:

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.

If it really were the 2 parents "responsibility" then it would be none of your business and none of the Court's business and we would let go and let the 2 parents to work out their own responsibilities along with their own parenting.

I find it infuriating when self-righteous people claim it is the parents "responsibility" while at the same time you issue controlling orders of do-this and do-not-that as in you are taking away their responsibility.

Cool

1 Reply

A couple more questions, Mr. Candidate:

Do you believe the government has a right to step in for child abuse cases?

Do you believe negligence is a form of child abuse?

1 Reply

@JP Cusick,

Anyone quoting the Bible over here would kiss their prospects of being elected goodbye.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Have I got this straight?

You don't believe the government should be involved in parenting?

You believe the government should be responsible (via public assistance) in parenting? (Are you running on the Socialist ticket?)

You are running for government office with the hope of passing laws about parenting because you don't think that government should be involved in parenting?

That is just confusing my position.

I say the gov does not need to be in the Child Support business, and that the gov has created a bigger mess because of its interference.

It is correct that the Child Support is parenting laws, but you are "putting the horse before the cart" as they say.

boomerang wrote:

A couple more questions, Mr. Candidate:

Do you believe the government has a right to step in for child abuse cases?

Do you believe negligence is a form of child abuse?

I do believe the gov (the police) does need to step in when there is child abuse or harmful neglect.

And I will say that the Child Support and Custody laws do their own kind of abuse and neglect by destroying the family unit, and by alienating the children from their parents, and by building hostilities between the two parents.

In reference to the Child Support and Custody laws then it is the gov and the Courts who are the abusers of families.

Exclamation

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

He disqualified himself already when he said that he doesn't believe in
a women's right to choose over her own body.

2 Replies

@JP Cusick,

JP Cusick wrote:

I say the gov does not need to be in the Child Support business, and that the gov has created a bigger mess because of its interference.

Then, your thesis is that everyone will just "do what's right", regardless of what it costs them? That idea has been disproven by countless examples.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Anyone quoting the Bible over here would kiss their prospects of being elected goodbye.

And therein, we see the problem that's central to the UK, ya bunch of druidic heathens!

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

He disqualified himself already when he said that he doesn't believe in
a women's right to choose over her own body.

I do say you make a right connection between abortion and Child Support and Custody laws because all these are degrading and insulting to children and are even expressions of hatred for babies and children.

Obviously abortion wants to kill the baby, so Child Support and Custody laws mean that the baby / child is a burden and liability which has to be paid for.

As like a Man gives a Woman a brand new car then she says "thank you", but a Man gives a Woman a brand new baby then she declares that he needs to pay her for having that burden.

And it is a lie, because the baby is better and more valuable then some new car but they put a higher value on property then is put on their own children.

And I do not mean this as a gender dispute against Women since many Men too believe in abortions and that babies are a burden and those Men are just as ignorant and barbaric as are those Women.

roger wrote:

Then, your thesis is that everyone will just "do what's right", regardless of what it costs them? That idea has been disproven by countless examples.

I point out that you give no such example - even after declaring there to be so many as "countless" yet you give zero none.

People will always do what is right for them self and for their own family, and the only time that people do NOT is when there is some outside pressure or interference.

The idea that you or the gov has to control the lives of other people is a dysfunctional idea of a controlling personality.

3 Replies

@JP Cusick,

Quote:

I point out that you give no such example - even after declaring there to be so many as "countless" yet you give zero none.

People will always do what is right for them self and for their own family, and the only time that people do NOT is when there is some outside pressure or interference.

The idea that you or the gov has to control the lives of other people is a dysfunctional idea of a controlling personality.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
The reason we have child support laws in the first place is because people don't do what is right for their family.
They didn't just invent them to pass the time.

The whole of your arguments here smack of hedonistic fantasy.
The idea that the purpose of sexual relations is primarily pleasure is utter foolishness.
The primary purpose of sexual relations is procreation, pleasure is secondary. Attempting to dodge the responsibility for the product of your sexual relations is immature.

0 Replies

@JP Cusick,

Well, JPCusick, although I think you've been living in the 19th century all this time, I do compliment you for choosing this modern venue of an internet forum to get your ideas across and discussed.

JP Cusick wrote:

I do say you make a right connection between abortion and Child Support and Custody laws because all these are degrading and insulting to children and are even expressions of hatred for babies and children.

That's your opinion, but it's not reality. What is degrading to children is that an unwanted child is treated as such: unwanted and more often than not neglected and abused.

JP Cusick wrote:

Obviously abortion wants to kill the baby, so Child Support and Custody laws mean that the baby / child is a burden and liability which has to be paid for.

Obviously a baby is a born human being capable of living on its own.
You cannot abort a baby, but within the legal means it is possible to
abort an embryo and fetus up to the 12th week of gestation.

JP Cusick wrote:

As like a Man gives a Woman a brand new car then she says "thank you", but a Man gives a Woman a brand new baby then she declares that he needs to pay her for having that burden.

That's a very bad example and I don't even want to go down this road.

JP Cusick wrote:

And I do not mean this as a gender dispute against Women since many Men too believe in abortions and that babies are a burden and those Men are just as ignorant and barbaric as are those Women.

I tell you what's barbaric: child abuse is barbaric, and the number of
children in our system (child protective care, foster care etc.) is staggering high due to child abuse, neglect and/or both. The numbers would be by
far higher were it illegal to abort. Ignorance is on the side of people who
close their eyes to this subject.

Just for the record: I have never aborted and I actually adopted a child within the foster care system, and once I had some insight in the social service/foster care system, I became an avid advocate for pro choice as I do not believe that children should suffer in a manner they do, just because they're not wanted.
I'd rather have the mother an abortion before she starts abusing her child.

1 Reply

@JP Cusick,

In Internet lingo: can't decide if serious or just trolling.

If you're serious, then you're seriously disconnected from reality. I assume you're running on the Republican ticket?

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

We had a vote in the commons on changing our abortion laws sponsored by the Tory mp Nadine Dorries. What really killed it dead in the water were reports that she was being sponsored by Christian evangelicals.

I've always wondered why these pro life individuals puff and blow so much about the rights of the unborn child, but at the same time seem completely unconcerned about the rights and welfare of the born child.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Well, it's easier to understand when you figure out that the issue isn't about taking care of children. The issue is about making/keeping women as second-class citizens.

Can't let them wimmins get abortions; they might think they can get jobs and compete with men.

Can't give those kids day care, or food, or child support; wimmins might get ahead.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

@ehBeth....based on what I read from the original poster, he needs to know what he is talking about before posting a statement like that. Let's hope this clown is not elected to Congress not that he would have the power to change the entire Federal system. I'm still owed over $30,000. in unpaid child support. My youngest just turned 27. Guess who will be there fighting you if you should happen to win?

0 Replies

@JP Cusick,

Yes, I have some input........ Know what the sam hill you are talking about before posting a silly statement like the one you posted to start this thread. The child support payments are based on the income of both parents. It is not a fixed amount. I'll be sure to notify my fellow child support advocates in Maryland about your run for the Congress. If there is one thing we do not need in Congress it's another dipwad who doesn't know his head from his other end.

2 Replies

Child Support as Politics.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know