Reply With Quote
how many international businessmen and military personnel are going to go to jail in your world?
So then you're fine with taking the place of the father when it comes to financially supporting the kid? And then financially supporting the father too?
how many international businessmen and military personnel are going to go to jail in your world?
Yep, my step-daughter's father just moved out of state (joined the carnival actually when my step-daughter was 3 - LOL). I came into the picture in July 2006 and I had already spent more on her in the first 6 months than he had in her first 9 years. Our State AG can't find him. When my wife followed up about 5 or 6 years ago on this they said "Ok we will help you, find his address for us and we will do what we can"They have to actually work and have reportable income for that to happen.
The entire child support/custody system needs a massive overhaul. Currently I have my daughter well over half of the time (about a month more on average per year) yet I had a snowball's chance in of getting primary and have to pay $467/mo in child support that hopefully goes towards her. I understand why it is the way it is, but society is radically different than it was when you generally had a one working person household.
I say anyone wanting a kid should apply. Come up with some rules, have them sign a contract and lets see what happens.
Even a Catholic priest?
yeah i'm fine with financially supporting the father or mother for a couple of years if they can get corrected. maybe then they're responsible enough to make their own money and they and their kids and their kids's kids aren't living off tax money fifty year down the road. the current system doesn't help the situation, in a lot of ways it enables it. in the long run i think having more accountable people would decrease taxes from what the are currently.
seriously, you're comparing their situation to a deadbeat's? c'mon man.
No, it's doing time for the deed.
Sex can have consequences, and it should be the burden of those responsible. Not the tax payers.
I am of the libertarian ideal that does not include anarchy. Responsibility for our own freedom. When we abuse that freedom to the point it affects others, I am all for appropriate laws to protect others.
If you and her mother both have incomes, the monthly amount is suppose to be apportioned, calculating both incomes and time spent at each place. If it isn't, you have cause for it to be recalculated.
Insight:
1. Adults have to get away from each other else someone puts a gun to everyone's head then to their own.
2. No one is guaranteed a nice family, life itself is questionable until you breathe on your own.
3. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
4. Marriages are legal unions and divorce is a legal end to that contract. The responsibility is to fund, so you can move out of state and make payments on Bunky instead of watching Bunky grow.
5. For the same reason you can send a kid off to a boarding school. As long as the kid has a legal guardian and funding, all is well. Law doesn't address "ought". It addresses needs. Child welfare isn't about mommy and daddy. It's about having what the child needs to survive.
6. Locking him up would ensure he's not there.
You haven't defined "not being there for it"
100% legit statement.
As a country who embraces science it would be foolish to dismiss man's biological need to create offspring. It's not our fault, it's biology. It is the woman's biological job to find a suitable mate to ensure quality of life for the offspring. They are the one's that aren't doing their job.
Not in TX.
you're missing the point. Our law already places the burden of child-rearing on the parents. A non-custodial parent can be court-ordered to pay support to the child, provide health insurance for the child, and take an active role in their child's life by visting regularly. Taxpayers are not bearing any burden when a father (or mother) who is not the primary custodian lives up to these requirements. When the non-custodial doesn't live up them, he or she can be jailed or have their parental rights stripped. what the OP wants (it seems) is to force adults into living arrangements that one or both parties might not want. That is stupid, and so are you.
No, its a topic for right now seeing as you want to add even more prisoners to an already bloated prison system.
On top of that, you want more crime and punishment for non-violent offenders.
Its exactly like drugs in that there is no conceivable way to prevent them from proliferating any society.-it's not a comparable situation to drugs. you can hide drugs, and the people who know you do drugs often enable you and might even do them with you. there are easy ways to evade the law in the case of drugs. father a child and aren't there for it though? then you've got a whole different situation. a lot of people who'd turn you in. it would be much harder to hide from the law.
You propose making unprotected sex illegal should it produce a child, essentially. Which on the scale of "How ing Stupid Can We Get?", this ranks above (ie worse) than China's one-child policy.
In case you dont know, in China, should a woman become pregnant with her second child, its routine that said child is left to die somewhere for fear of being prosecuted by the Chinese government.
You would be re-creating this exact brand of barbarism. People are going to have unprotected sex, from the beginning of humanity to the end. No law can prevent this and its results (ie babies, STDs, etc).
So what your dumbass law would do is force less than scrupulous individuals who in the past would have only been absentee parents to choose between a. going to prison, or parent-camp, whatever the idea you had or b. make the baby's existence go away. Whether its adoption, abortion, abandonment or even murder.
Your idea is dumb only because you havent thought of its consequences.
...and youre naive to think a society can force people to be responsible by force of law. Stigma works, societal pressure works, education works best...incarceration for non-violent offenses, otoh, has proven to almost never work.-as for all that other you said in the last paragraph about moral legislation... there's something seriously wrong with our society if it thinks money is an apt subs ute for a father. it's a shame you don't hold that opinion and arent compelled to do anything about it. accountability is important to me.
You dream of a world where you can force other humans to be better humans. Youre either too young, too dumb or too sheltered to know how completely -all wrong that is. You probably believe that by creating consequences for people's actions that this will somehow make them see the error of their ways and reconsider.
Some fractional amount of society, this might work. But for the other 80-90% of people, it doesnt mean and doesnt change anything. All youve done is wasted your time and resources with tools that are by their nature incapable of dealing with such a "problem".
Analogy; Youre essentially using a slingshot to send satellites into space based on the cost efficiency vs 3-stage rockets. Sounds good, doesnt mean its going to work.
consequences don't force people to change the way they behave?
definitely not all the time, but you're basically saying that they never work, which is unfounded and i completely disagree with that.
laws don't always work though, of course. because it's easy to evade the law in a lot pof cases. take drunk driving or doing drugs. people do those things all of the time. but they get away with it because it's so damn easy to. like i mentioned in my first post. people who do coke, shoot heroin, etc, (as with drunk driving) surround themselves with people enable them to do those things and who often take part in those same activities. there are no consequences, unless you get caught. there's not a victim.
but take a pregnant women though who has been knocked up and has to raise a child on her own. i know plenty of these women (and one guy) and they hate the of the unsupportive father. they, and the kid, are victims, and, at least the ones i know would not hesitate to go to the police if it were though of as a crime. i would say many women who have the same experience have the same sentiment toward the absent father. and i don't have the stats to back up how many country-wide think that way and i wont make up imaginary stats either. escaping the law isn't nearly as easy if your a deadbeat dad. it's not snorting coke with friends and it's not driving home drunk after a party, both in enabling environments.
i don't believe for a second that a law that would be so hard to evade would not make a guy whose interest is just to from putting on a condom, when he otherwise wouldn't. there is no consequence for absent dad today. no matter how many times he's hear about unprotected sex, he's going to not use a condom even though they're so readily available because there's no reason to. having a kid is treated as just a bump in the road. something a monthly payment of money can pay for, and a lot of times times those payments aren't even made because the deadbeat doesn't have a job in the first place and can't pay for child support. in which case there is virtually no consequence.
Last edited by mingus; 06-10-2011 at 01:59 PM.
also, as far as the one child policy in China:
abortion is legal in China. not sure what murdered babies your talking about. but they could have been murdered because of their gender. the reason you assume they are murdered is wrong at least partly. in China, it's preferable to have a boy rather than a girl and there's no pre-birth sex-determination in China either for fear that abortions would be made on that basis. a lot of women kill their child if it's female after birth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
