Single mothers aren’t people who can’t help themselves. They are people who refused to help themselves. That’s a big difference for me. I’ll gladly take on extra burdens to help someone who needs it, but I’ll not take on those burdens because some one else doesn’t want to work, plan or prepare.
And why would the woman give birth to a child that he man has legally divorced himself from and then expect child support from him? And if she did, why should he be responsible?
Are you still positing that we are going to draft the new rule so that “secret male abortions” will be possible? That would be a very unique and possibly unconstitutional law indeed.
I disagree. I am willing to give impoversihed children welfare for their entire childhood if necessary. I am not as willing to give an able bodied adult the same leeway. I am willing to provide government services that help children and consequently the adults attached to them. For example, I would pay for free child care for all children of working or disabled parents.
Are you against free education and medic al care for poor kids? How do you feel about free child care for working or disabled parents?
And why can’t the government pick up that tab?
This is not a really good example.
The children of stupid mothers deserve our sympathy and help at least as much as the children of really smart mothers.
I’m quite in favor of a social safety net. I think it produces a stable, safe society. However public education and free or sliding scale medical care along with whatever else is necessary for life should be available for all the poor, not just children. One of the biggest objections I have to current child support laws is that the payments are based on the non-custodial parent’s income. In situations were a marriage existed between the parents, this is fair. However, I see plenty of children being born in situations where a marriage never existed between the parents, would have never existed, in fact nothing more than an ejaculation consists of the “relationship” between the two parents, yet child support is awarded based on the income of the non-custodial parent usually the father who never wanted to be a parent in the first place. Just as we don’t force a woman who accidently gets pregnant from recreational sex to be an incubator for some adopter, I don’t believe we can morally justify forcing a man to hand over 18 years of support because of an accidental pregnancy from recreational sex.
Which is why various Aid to Families with Dependent Children programs and Foodstamps exist.
If you do not go through the adoption process, that usually means that you cannot be a parent to the child involved. But a man who can sweet talk his lady can probably still be a parent without the legal commitment.
Apologies. I just found it frustrating repeatedly being told I had said things I hadn’t.
So? A man can sweet talk a woman into buying him expensive gifts, paying off his debts, and supporting him in a luxurious lifestyle. If the woman allows herself to be used that’s her problem, not mine.
Actually, if you are a taxpayer, it is indeed yours.
Poor kids don’t just have their own sucky lives, they hurt everyone. Childhood poverty makes it less likely that you will become the kind of educated skilled workers that our country needs to compete globally. I’m not usually one for this argument, but China is fighting like hell to fight childhood poverty (at least among the class that they expect to be economically important.) We can’t afford to have under-educated, unskilled people.
And what the biggest mitigating factor in child poverty? Single mothers. We should be doing everything possible to prevent this, not awarding the very women who create this problem with a portion of someone’s salary that may well be a higher percentage of their income than his or her legal spouse (you know the person the non-custodial may have planned and agreed to have children with) and wanted children receive. I’ve got no problem with single mothers getting minimal assistance to survive. That’s why ATFDC and Food Stamps exist. But they don’t deserve the monetary priviledges of spouses.
Except women AREN’T awarded portions of people’s salaries. The child is. so I am glad to see you now support the current system.
The woman DETERMINES HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT, so yes, it is essentially awarded to her. Furthermore, the amount of money awarded in child support can be more than the more than the parents have to spend on their actual planned and wanted children. Hell, no I don’t support the current system, it’s positively vile for you to even suggest that. On par with suggesting I support ethnic cleansing or the 9/11 bombings (yeah, that’s how disgusting I consider child support for unwanted children to be.)
So we have moved from “awarded to” to “essentially awarded to.” Perish the thought you add a little accuracy to your diatribes.
Aww, I’d say I am sorry, but I’m not.
Wow. You really are… interesting, I guess is all I can say here.
Oh OK, I thought you were saying something else. I agree the percentage of income approach seems particularly inappropriate if the argument being put forward is that the child will otherwise be a burden on teh state.
And why should the child be awarded a prtion of the father’s income rather than some flat amount? If the concern is prevention of burdens on the state, why does the father’s income matter at all?
You again? This again?
You want an honest answer? IMHO it’s because some of the lawyers who represent unwed mothers in paternity cases have Mercredes payments to make.
Yeah, its never been addressed despite the fact that one of the primary arguments for child support of unwanted babies is so that taxpayers don’t have to pay for them.