Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[goldcatt]

Yes it will benefit society when people are forced to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. When women learn that the taxpayers are no longer willing to support them for their bad choices and men learn that when they father a child they have to support it.

Tell me counselor, does it benefit society to reward people for their bad choices? Does 1 out of 4 Americans on welfare benefit society? Does the millions in welfare fraud benefit society?

Does it benefit children, to punish them for their parent's mistake?

In time, those children would not be born until they are able to be supported by their parents.
Thats the whole point of our side of the debate.

And what do you do with the throwaway generation?

 

[Luissa]

Yes it will benefit society when people are forced to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. When women learn that the taxpayers are no longer willing to support them for their bad choices and men learn that when they father a child they have to support it.

Tell me counselor, does it benefit society to reward people for their bad choices? Does 1 out of 4 Americans on welfare benefit society? Does the millions in welfare fraud benefit society?

Does it benefit children, to punish them for their parent's mistake?

Putting it the way you put it is the same as our side of the debate saying:

"rewarding irresponsible behavior"

It is not that just as much as it is not "opting to punish the children".

Both of those are known as "spin".

I see that. Do you?

I asked a question, you can choose to answer it or not.
Otherwise, ccarry on.

 

[Luissa]

I got $6.50 from my kids dad on wednesday, so glad I put him on the BC and had to come up with parenting plan ordered by the state, that gives him visitation rights. That $6.50 is almost half of his normal weekly garnishment, I guess $18.50 was too much to pay this week.
I love people who support these kind of laws, I bet in their head, their world is kind like Pleasantville.

 

[Jarhead]

Does it benefit children, to punish them for their parent's mistake?

Putting it the way you put it is the same as our side of the debate saying:

"rewarding irresponsible behavior"

It is not that just as much as it is not "opting to punish the children".

Both of those are known as "spin".

I see that. Do you?

I asked a question, you can choose to answer it or not.
Otherwise, ccarry on.

I would have answered it but I tried to show you how you must first qualify the validity of the question....something I guess you did not deem as necessary.

So I will answer it for you.

I would never want to punish a child for its parents behavior.

SO I deem it best to do all that is possible to ensure the parents dont act in a way where the child would be punished.

Let me ask you this....

Do you feel it is appropriate that we, the people, enable the parents to do things that may result in unecessary punishment of the child?

 

[rightwinger]

because doing the above benefits society.

but telling that to rightwingnut loons who want a dickensian society is pointless.

Yes it will benefit society when people are forced to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. When women learn that the taxpayers are no longer willing to support them for their bad choices and men learn that when they father a child they have to support it.

Tell me counselor, does it benefit society to reward people for their bad choices? Does 1 out of 4 Americans on welfare benefit society? Does the millions in welfare fraud benefit society?

Does it benefit children, to punish them for their parent's mistake?

How else are they going to learn?

Isn't starvation the best teaching tool?

 

[Coyote]

Now, that's a good plan, as long as the state does not raise the child in some sort of institution. Adopt the child out.

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

Not all mothers, who can't (at the time) afford to care for their children, are bad mothers.

 

[AllieBaba]

People don't prepare because they don't know how important it is until AFTER they have kids. I had my first two children when I was 21 and 22, and I look back and think, omg, I was such an IDIOT. I didn't feel like an idiot at the time, I had it all figured out. I loved their dad, it would last FOREVER.

I made many mistakes, but people who have all their ducks in a row make mistakes, too. Maybe not the same ones, but my sister, who is married and waited until she was almost 30 to have kids, and who has had plenty of support and income to provide for her kids, faced the exact same issues that I did, and had her share of stress and heartache DESPITE her situation. The difference is, when money was able to help out, she was able to provide that. That was helpful sometimes, but not all the time.

People do make mistakes, they do have kids when they probably don't, which is why I think it's so important to train our children that sex and babies are for AFTER you complete school and become established as an adult, with a spouse. They won't all do it, but what's wrong with telling them what is true...that it is better for everyone if you wait?

 

[AllieBaba]

I got $6.50 from my kids dad on wednesday, so glad I put him on the BC and had to come up with parenting plan ordered by the state, that gives him visitation rights. That $6.50 is almost half of his normal weekly garnishment, I guess $18.50 was too much to pay this week.
I love people who support these kind of laws, I bet in their head, their world is kind like Pleasantville.

A parent has a right to visit his kid whether he pays his child support or not.

You made the choice. You don't get to go back later and pretend he doesn't exist. You had a child with him, now you're stuck with him. Your bad, live with it.

 

[Luissa]

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

Not all mothers, who can't (at the time) afford to care for their children, are bad mothers.

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course you're not a bad mother. A bad mother would allow her child to suffer.

 

[Conspiracist]

because doing the above benefits society.

but telling that to rightwingnut loons who want a dickensian society is pointless.

Yes it will benefit society when people are forced to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. When women learn that the taxpayers are no longer willing to support them for their bad choices and men learn that when they father a child they have to support it.

Tell me counselor, does it benefit society to reward people for their bad choices? Does 1 out of 4 Americans on welfare benefit society? Does the millions in welfare fraud benefit society?

bump for Jillian.

 

[Luissa]

I got $6.50 from my kids dad on wednesday, so glad I put him on the BC and had to come up with parenting plan ordered by the state, that gives him visitation rights. That $6.50 is almost half of his normal weekly garnishment, I guess $18.50 was too much to pay this week.
I love people who support these kind of laws, I bet in their head, their world is kind like Pleasantville.

A parent has a right to visit his kid whether he pays his child support or not.

You made the choice. You don't get to go back later and pretend he doesn't exist. You had a child with him, now you're stuck with him. Your bad, live with it.

Yeah, because it is so healthy for a child to see his father every three months. My son doesn't even get that he is even is father. Yeah it is my bad, but I am not the only one who has to live with it.
And where did I say I wanted to pretend he didn't exist? I am saying I should be made to allow him visitations, when he can't ever make the ones he is assigned.

 

[AllieBaba]

You never know, Luissa. My kids never see their dad. No matter how incredibly obnoxious he is, I think they would be happier if they saw him. The only reason they don't is because the fucktard is a menace to their health. The thing with kids is...it's good to have a dad (even if you know him to be a loser) when they are at certain stages of development....but when they get old enough to be discerning about him, they will see him as he is and make their own choices regarding him. Until them, it really is better for the kid to know he has a dad when he's little. They miss out on that and they have these lingering issues that don't ever go away....

 

[Jarhead]

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

Not all mothers, who can't (at the time) afford to care for their children, are bad mothers.

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not all mothers, who can't (at the time) afford to care for their children, are bad mothers.

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

That's a very good point.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

because doing the above benefits society.

but telling that to rightwingnut loons who want a dickensian society is pointless.

Yes it will benefit society when people are forced to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. When women learn that the taxpayers are no longer willing to support them for their bad choices and men learn that when they father a child they have to support it.

Tell me counselor, does it benefit society to reward people for their bad choices? Does 1 out of 4 Americans on welfare benefit society? Does the millions in welfare fraud benefit society?

Does it benefit children, to punish them for their parent's mistake?

No it doesn't but whose fault is that? The taxpayers or the parents?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is very easy to find anecdotal stories about abuses. And I have no doubt there are instances of abuse for which the perps should be prosecuted. But you can't punish needy people because some people are idiots.... same as you wouldn't punish every financial advisor because bernie madoff was.

Needy people my ass. If these s-called needy fucks would take responsibility for themselves and their actions then they wouldn't need us taxpayers supporting them. Truth is these needy pukes are nothing but a bunch of lazy bums that have no sense of pride or dignity.

Tell me counselor, how long would you pay a person for not working before you decided it was time for that person to find a job, any job!

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

 

[Jarhead]

My son will probably be on state medical for awhile, I doubt I will find health insurance that would cover most of his therapy and school costs. I guess I am a bad mother.

No...not a bad mother. Any mother that cares for her child is a good mother.

I question your decision to have a child if you were not financlailly able to care for it....but that does not make you a bad mother....maybe a poor decision maker...but by no means a bad mother.

If you were not financailly secure, would you have bought a home?

I assume not.....

But then I ask why you would put more emphasis on being financially secure as it pertains to an inanimate object than you would as it pertains to a child.

Would you be more likely to buy that home, even if not financially secure if you knew that the government would help you if you needed financial help to carry the home?

I trust you see my point.

That's a very good point.

And one that was completely ignored by most.
Good points have no place on this board. A good point is used to support ones sentiment...and sadly the opposition never wants to see valid support. They prefer simply saying "you are an idiot if you beleve it fair to punish the child"...and things like that.

Both sides do it and ruin a good debate.

 

[rightwinger]

Needy people my ass. If these s-called needy fucks would take responsibility for themselves and their actions then they wouldn't need us taxpayers supporting them. Truth is these needy pukes are nothing but a bunch of lazy bums that have no sense of pride or dignity.

Tell me counselor, how long would you pay a person for not working before you decided it was time for that person to find a job, any job!

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

How punative a society do we live in?

Do we punish women who make wrong decisions about who they love? Do we take out our frustrations on the children?

Do we put them out in the streets? Is it the role of society to punish people for their relationship mistakes anjd make an example of them?

 

[Jarhead]

You do realize that a lot of single moms who receive help have jobs?
When I received help when my son was first born I had a job to go back to, but they didn't provide health care for my child and I ran out of vacation pay because I had to leave early. If this law they came up with would have been in place, I would have been screwed. My child's father is a loser and due to him and the state he wasn't put on my son's BC until my son was nine ten months old. By the time my son was six weeks old I was back to work, and off assistance.
You guys live in a black and white fantasy world, with no real clue about real problems.

Define "a lot".

So you chose to have a child with a loser and the rest of society foots the bill. Why should I or anyone pay for your fuck up?

How punative a society do we live in?

Do we punish women who make wrong decisions about who they love? Do we take out our frustrations on the children?

Do we put them out in the streets? Is it the role of society to punish people for their relationship mistakes anjd make an example of them?

Is it the role of society to INTENTIONALLY enable people to make poor decisions that may result in pounishment of their children?

You like the idea of giving a teenaged girl reason to bring a child into a life of poverty, irresponsible parenting, etc?

I think it is irresponsible fo society to enable poor decision makers to make pooor decisions.

You dont?