Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

I was being sarcastic. You missed it.

Oh, I caught it. I just don't care. Would your law include the criminalization of divorce? Or at the very least, the prohibition?

Where children are present, divorce should be extremely difficult.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Cool. Let's also throw people in jail that spank their kids.

No. They should be publicly and horribly tortured to death over a period of not less than one year.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sil still hasn't answered my question. What happens when someone you have banned from having children, gets pregnant.

And also, if one parent has to stay home with the children, what happens if the father doesn't make enough money to support the family.

All of your ideas of raising children only work if the father earns enough money to support the family.

If you look at the families where women are getting abortions, a large percentage of the families have a total income below the poverty line. The next largest group have incomes below 100% above the poverty line.

You haven't addressed how the lower income couples can possibly have a stay at home mother and enough money to live on

 

[Silhouette]

Sil still hasn't answered my question. 1. What happens when someone you have banned from having children, gets pregnant. 2. And also, if one parent has to stay home with the children, what happens if the father doesn't make enough money to support the family....All of your ideas of raising children only work if the father earns enough money to support the family....3. If you look at the families where women are getting abortions, a large percentage of the families have a total income below the poverty line. The next largest group have incomes below 100% above the poverty line....You haven't addressed how the lower income couples can possibly have a stay at home mother and enough money to live
on

Strawman

#1: This isn't about banning someone from becoming pregnant. Or about having a super-computer that can control every single child's destiny from the one night stand to them graduating high school. It's a thread about having an amendment that if an adult's wants/whims impinge upon a child's needs, the child prevails in a court of law.

#2: Money is another "what happens if...". That's about chance. That involves adults having needs, not wants or whims. Please learn the difference.

#3: Having an abortion while you may want one after the child is viable at birth (around 5 months I think +/-), is not a need unless your life is in danger. Then, the child can be delivered anyway alive.

This Amendment would cover those children born. From the day they are born. The abortion "when does viable life start" debate can rage on separately. From the day a child is born, that child has vital needs. An adult's whims cannot be legally superior to a child's needs. That's the long and the short of the Amendment. "Becoming pregnant, being pregnant, being poor, those are all things left to chance" and aren't part of an "adult wants vs child's needs" lawsuit or legal action/decision.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

I was being sarcastic. You missed it.

Oh, I caught it. I just don't care. Would your law include the criminalization of divorce? Or at the very least, the prohibition?

Where children are present, divorce should be extremely difficult.

You're insane.

Note that plenty of women will then simply use those magic words: "He hit me!" Hell, my cousin's wife drove him to suicide.

 

[Silhouette]

What does that have to do with children's needs having legal dominance to adult's wants/whims?

 

[mdk]

Yeah, weren't not going to turn our entire legal system on it's head and take rights away from people by a simple vote just so Sil can punish gays. This proposal, like all of Sil's predictions, will go nowhere.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, weren't not going to turn our entire legal system on it's head and take rights away from people by a simple vote just so Sil can punish gays. This proposal, like all of Sil's predictions, will go nowhere.

Actually, the legal system in place today ostensibly does already favor children's needs over adults wants/whims. However, local judges, juries under the influence of slick attorneys can be hornswaggled into forgetting that and finding against those needs and in favor of adult whims. The new Amendment would protect our last voteless class against that type of legal abuse.. It would become the Gold Standard against which all such disputes would be weighed.

These laws would also protect children from undue coercion like what's happening in Oregon with the state actually funding amputation surgery for minors suffering from mental delusions that what's between their legs "shouldn't be there". That practice would stop cold in its tracks with this Amendment on board.

That at least would be a good thing, right mdk?

 

[mdk]

Yeah, weren't not going to turn our entire legal system on it's head and take rights away from people by a simple vote just so Sil can punish gays. This proposal, like all of Sil's predictions, will go nowhere.

Actually, the legal system in place today ostensibly does already favor children's needs over adults wants/whims. However, local judges, juries under the influence of slick attorneys can be hornswaggled into forgetting that and finding against those needs and in favor of adult whims. The new Amendment would protect our last voteless class against that type of legal abuse.. It would become the Gold Standard against which all such disputes would be weighed.

These laws would also protect children from undue coercion like what's happening in Oregon with the state actually funding amputation surgery for minors suffering from mental delusions that what's between their legs "shouldn't be there". That practice would stop cold in its tracks with this Amendment on board.

That at least would be a good thing, right mdk?

I think it is a wonderful idea to put every single parenting issue up to a vote by the community. It sounds reasonable and cheap to pull off. lol.

All this nonsense just so you can punish gay people. Don't be shocked when none of this comes to pass.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What does that have to do with children's needs having legal dominance to adult's wants/whims?

I wasn't addressing you, bitch. Put a sock in it.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, weren't not going to turn our entire legal system on it's head and take rights away from people by a simple vote just so Sil can punish gays. This proposal, like all of Sil's predictions, will go nowhere.

Actually, the legal system in place today ostensibly does already favor children's needs over adults wants/whims. However, local judges, juries under the influence of slick attorneys can be hornswaggled into forgetting that and finding against those needs and in favor of adult whims. The new Amendment would protect our last voteless class against that type of legal abuse.. It would become the Gold Standard against which all such disputes would be weighed....These laws would also protect children from undue coercion like what's happening in Oregon with the state actually funding amputation surgery for minors suffering from mental delusions that what's between their legs "shouldn't be there". That practice would stop cold in its tracks with this Amendment on board.

That at least would be a good thing, right mdk?

I think it is a wonderful idea to put every single parenting issue up to a vote by the community. It sounds reasonable and cheap to pull off. lol.

All this nonsense just so you can punish gay people. Don't be shocked when none of this comes to pass.

Only those issues challenged in a court of law. Idiot! What part about this proposed Amendment are you trying to purposefully misconstrue? The new Amendment merely settles disputes of law before a judge or jury by instructing them which issue to give legal weight to whenever there is a contest: adult whims or child needs. It doesn't decide every issue of parenting, only if a child's advocate proves up neglect of that child's needs because of an adult's wants or whims.

Get that through your thick head.

 

[amineaouaq]

#Barack #Obama : How reached to the summit, the story of a wonderful life
Read his biography :

Barack Obama How reached to the summit the story of a wonderful life LIFE STYLE

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Off topic?

 

[mdk]

Yeah, weren't not going to turn our entire legal system on it's head and take rights away from people by a simple vote just so Sil can punish gays. This proposal, like all of Sil's predictions, will go nowhere.

Actually, the legal system in place today ostensibly does already favor children's needs over adults wants/whims. However, local judges, juries under the influence of slick attorneys can be hornswaggled into forgetting that and finding against those needs and in favor of adult whims. The new Amendment would protect our last voteless class against that type of legal abuse.. It would become the Gold Standard against which all such disputes would be weighed....These laws would also protect children from undue coercion like what's happening in Oregon with the state actually funding amputation surgery for minors suffering from mental delusions that what's between their legs "shouldn't be there". That practice would stop cold in its tracks with this Amendment on board.

That at least would be a good thing, right mdk?

I think it is a wonderful idea to put every single parenting issue up to a vote by the community. It sounds reasonable and cheap to pull off. lol.

All this nonsense just so you can punish gay people. Don't be shocked when none of this comes to pass.

Only those issues challenged in a court of law. Idiot! What part about this proposed Amendment are you trying to purposefully misconstrue? The new Amendment merely settles disputes of law before a judge or jury by instructing them which issue to give legal weight to whenever there is a contest: adult whims or child needs. It doesn't decide every issue of parenting, only if a child's advocate proves up neglect of that child's needs because of an adult's wants or whims.

Get that through your thick head.

We all know the exact motivation for this amendment of yours and that is to find a way to punish gay people. That is always your motivation.

Since you love to cite USMB polls as the real pulse of the nation, why are you not gassing on about this one? It appears that 64% does not want anything to do with this crack pot amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

 

[Syriusly]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

 

[mdk]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

I suppose we'll never find out b/c the likelihood of your amendment every seeing a vote is nil. Why would I be afraid of your imagination?

 

[Silhouette]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

Why are you equating protecting children with banning gay people from raising children? Oh, that would be because you know that the Prince's Trust survey found that boys raised without a regular male role model or girls raised without a female role model experience significantly higher rates of depression, maladjustment, indigency, a feeling of not belonging and suicide...

The innate dysfunction of your new social experiment is not "my bad". It's yours. Own it. Children are the last class who cannot vote and had absolutely zero voice in the gay marriage debate. A dozen of them raised under the burden described in the Prince's Trust (in gay fatherless/motherless homes) wrote amicus briefs saying that gay parents were not good substitutes for real ones to the SCOTUS before this case and not a mention was made of those briefs. It's time their voices were no longer purposefully squelched so that adults can get their jollies at their expense. Long past due time.

 

[Syriusly]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

Why are you equating protecting children with banning gay people from raising children?

Because as you have admitted in this thread, this is the actual objective of your proposed amendment.

Just another of your 'hate the gays' threads.

 

[Syriusly]

The motivation for putting children's needs above adult's wants is irrelevent to the topic. They should either be legally dominant or not. Are you afraid of that vote going before Congress? It sure sounds to me like you are.

Oh please put this before Congress- I am sure that they will be as baffled as anyone else trying to figure out what the hell your mess of words is supposed to mean.

If you reword it to more clearly state your actual objective: "A constitutional Amendment to ban gay people from raising children' they at least might understand what your objective is.

A dozen of them raised under the burden described in the Prince's Trust (in gay fatherless/motherless homes) .

The Prince's Trusty Study doesn't mention homosexuals- or fathers or mothers.

Just you making crap up again.