This spirit of this thread has gone from Pit to Debate to Pit and back to Debate…I’m almost ready to ask for a cite on your claim.
I say you don’t know for sure and I don’t know for sure. Millions? That is certainly unlikely…and without good recordkeeping by some of these sperm banks, nobody knows.
Yeti I’m pretty sure that sound you heard was the whoosh of the overhead sarcastic comment.
yosemite - yea, I know. Like I said, I’d been unfamiliar w/this latest phenom (and I’m not using that term in the ‘good’ way), so failed to factor that into the prediction. I attempted to feed in the data to the computer and the computer unplugged itself and started chanting “happly place, I’m in my happy place”. damndest thing.
I was joking. I’m not real big on using the smilie things; i was hoping my claim would be enough to tweat your funnybone.
I thought it was funny, but not as funny you looking for a cite…
peace
Okay, I’m mostly done with this thread, but I had to seize on this sentence.
Drug Laws. Laws against the consumption of alcohol at certain times. The restrictions against gay marriage. Our government can, and does legislate morality. Content restrictions on television.
They shouldn’t - and this is where you and I agree - so therefore, they should not legally compel a father to support his child.
Supporting your child is the right and good thing to do, but the government “can’t make people do what they believe is the moral thing.”
Pardon me for not including biological parent. I thought it was perfectly clear.
What do you mean by take?
You’re asking what I would do in the case where a woman ‘takes’ sperm from a man, fertilizes an egg and then implants it in another women?
I cited something twice earlier in this thread refering to a rights of a child in terms of who raises it. Clearly when a father goes to court to get custody of his kid there is some sort of ‘right’ here being exercised. Whether that right is with the father or the child there is some sort of right for the father to see his child.
Yes I do. If she can prove in a court of law that the father shouldn’t be informed then we don’t inform the father.
I disagree that it would be more harmful than beneficial. If it turns out to be that way then scrap it I have said it before and I will say it again. I think that a court hearing is a better way to determine if a father is dangerous than by a whim of the mother.
My point was that the debate about illegal immigration was neither here nor there. If this law ends up causing a few instinces where our current laws are applied then that is no reason for the law not to be passed.
treis, you are in a hole. Stop digging.
This isn’t an issue of mortality, that just treis’s crazy ass law. This is about allocation of resources and tapping into the publc fund.
And we’re back were we started. If the government shouldn’t make the father pay for his children, then who will? You, me, the mother? Fine, she can’t make it on her own. Now what? State institutions?
Why should the line to pay up be drawn AHEAD of the father? Why does he get to go to the back of the line? Because he was smart enough to do a runner?
unacceptable.
I already posted the solution to the common problem, it happened to be solution #2. Should I bump that to #1 and vice versa for the other solution? Noticed that I put “numerous” in quote marks to imply some sarcasm into that statement? #1 would have been a by-product of using #2. Maybe I should have switched them on preview.
Work with me here, people. I want to see some solutions (wouldn’t you?), not nitpicking or excessive bashing. Anything else that can be added?
Oh, and holmes, “thanks” for the whoosh… :o
Giraffe got whoosed also with my “numerous” comment.
I’m just trying to think out an improvement on the system as a whole, including resolving those far-fetched issues.
I don’t think they are compelling him to support his child from a strict morality point of view, but from a fairness/don’t burden society with your irresponsibility point of view.
It’s immoral to take something without paying for it, and it’s also illegal. It’s immoral to not live up to your obligations, and in many cases, it’s also illegal. The government shouldn’t be able to punish people strictly because they decided that they “sinned,” but the government can expect people to behave in certain ways, and compel them to do so (pay your bills, don’t drive too fast, etc.).
yosemite-
We still force people to pay child support even if the parent with sole custody can support the child on its own.
Our government may be legislating morality in your examples–that’s a whole 'nother thread.
As the law stands, the government does not have a compelling interest in knowing who the parents of a child are just because a child exists. The government has a compelling interest in you (generic) supporting your child because if you don’t the government has to. Absent parents are compelled to provide child support not because of morality but because of costs. The fact that requiring absent parents to pay support is also a moral thing is just a nice by-product of the requirement for people to pay for their own offspring to the extent they are capable to relieve the burden on taxpayers.
There is a way* to completely avoid paying child support. It’s legal and will only cost the absent parent 36 years of his/her life. It also sucks and is not the way I would like to live, but if it’s that important to a person, then they are welcome to it. All you have to do is hide from support enforcement until the statutue of limitations on the child support runs out.
On preview:
That is because the child shouldn’t have to live a lesser quality of life just because the absent parent doesn’t want to fork over the cash. Absent parents don’t just get to bail because the custodial parent can afford rent and food. Don’t be an ass and punish the kid because of the parents inability to keep their shit together.
*under current Washington state law and possibly federal guidelines as well
And we still make people pay for Windows XP, even though Bill Gates is a bakajillionaire. A financial obligation is still a financial obligation.
I should have expanded my thought. If you remove the ‘don’t burden society’ part we are compelling child support from a fairness standpoint. Where do we get our concept of fairness from besides our morals?
Please explain how a woman would possibly prove this without informing the father of the child.
You want to remove “fairness” from our laws?
I believe in this case we got our concept of fairness from people bitching about paying taxes for welfare for children whose parents wouldn’t support them.
yosemite-
No, I was just pointing out that our current child support laws are based on morality not just to prevent the government having to pick up the tab for the child.
badbadrubberpiggy-
The mother would spell out the reasons she has for not telling the father about the child. If the judge agrees then we don’t tell the father if the judge disagrees we tell the father.
Sooo…she can basically tell him anything? She can say he was abusive, a drug addict, a pedophile, or threatened her life, and doesn’t actually have to prove it?
I’d say that’s a pretty huge loophole in your plan. And no, it’s NOT always obvious if somebody’s lying. As another poster said earlier, a woman who knows this law and doesn’t want to name the father has ample time to come up with a plan that will allow them not to name the father.
Judges require PROOF. I don’t beleive you will find a judge who would be able to rule strictly on what anyone tells him, with nothing to back it up.
That would be great! If we could could get King Solomon to do the judging. Unfortunately we live in the real world. Where a mother has to have proof that may be unatainable without putting the child and herself at risk.
The sky is blue in the real world. What color is it in yours?
On preview what Piggy said.
If she can’t provide any evidence to back up her assertions then isn’t her fear unfounded? If she can’t point to a history of abuse or a clear reason why he shouldn’t be informed then he gets informed.