It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism and Child Support

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by 547000
 


Anyhow I do agree with you in a sense, but it is just as much a mans responsibility to raise a child as it is a womans. Problem is that a father not seeing his child and fully paying for it is not the answer by a long shot. If these so called child advocate groups really had the best interest of the child they would be promoting fatherhood not tearing it down.


It's only the man's responsibility when it benefits women. Men seem to have responsibility but no rights.




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Yes, that is the way it seems to work. However if you can afford to prove that she is unfit then you can win. This however does not solve the problem it only amplifies it.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
You ever heard of Lilith?

mosqueoflilith.wordpress.com...

Notice that Lilith is anti-capitalist and a feminist.

These things are deeply rooted in the occult, in the many states a father must have at least 93 days and overnights with a child before receiving any sort of break from child support obligations, which by the way is nearly impossible with school schedules and all.

93 "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
en.wikipedia.org...(Thelema)

These things go against the teachings of Christ.
edit on 30-6-2011 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 





Is this legal? For the state to take away a child from one parent without his or her consent? Or to decide who the child should be with without hearing the facts?


if the two can't get along enough to stay under the same roof together, well, obviously, something has to be decided in regards to child custody and visitation rights of the parents.....
so, who should decide, or would you prefer that we force the two parents to remain under the same roof???

and what if mommy wanted to abort the baby, but daddy didn't and well, she consented, for his sake to have the kid...I am pretty sure that happens alot also!!! should daddy still get to skate away responsibility free after the kid is born and he decides fatherhood isn't his cup of tea???

but, well,

www.wmal.com...

let's see, I can stay with the father of my child, who wanted me to kill the child because he "couldn't afford it, or wasn't ready for it, whatever......and well, live in a not so nice substandard housing with sewage filling the basement......ignoring the urge to run my kids to the doctors when they get real sick, eating every other day because there's not enough food for everyone....

or.....
I could have


swimming pools with fountains and heated spas, billiards rooms, granite counter tops, ceramic tile, indoor basketball courts, stainless steel appliances


plenty of food for everyone,
all the medical care my kids and me needs!!!
and without the hassle of the man trying to run the show!!!!!

I still say this is the main source of the problem!!!



"If the occupants of these homes improve their lives financially, they will be forced to move out. And the housing they could afford without the taxpayer subsidy is well below the quality of these homes," he said.

Why would we have taxpayers who are trying to work their way into these neighborhoods pay for somebody else to be put into these neighborhoods," said Herrity.


yes, why indeed!!! probably because the owners of these luxury apartment complexes want too much for rent and the only way they can get them filled is to talk to their friend in hud and con them into sending some tennants their way, and well, use taxpayer's money to pay the rent for them!!!!

in plain simple words, we ain't gonna have stable families till something is done to equalize the economy some and well, get rid of the abusers of the system, and I ain't talk about the single moms when I refer to the abusers...I am talking about rich people and companies that are offering the poor services, and collecting the checks from their friends in gov't!!
this isn't communism, it is facism.....everything is geared to put money into the hands of the big cheeses....don't let the fact that this money is dressed up all pretty in the form of "charity" for the poor!!!

so, well, let me ask you something, what, in your opinion is more unconstitutional......
letting you off the hook, and letting the taxpayer shoulder all of the burden of your kids, while they live in these homes that we can't afford???
that is why I think you rant will get you no where, if not the mother and father, then who, outside of the taxpayers, or are getting sick and tired of being taxed to death!!!! who are struggling to put any roof over their head, who cares if it has a pool or not, who are struggling to have just one decent meal, let alone three, who are going to work every day, sick or not, and still finding the charge for a doctor's visit to be a little over their budget limit!!!

my and my husband didn't really get alone that well, but we sucked it up and made it work, raised our own kids...TOGETHER!!
maybe you should try a little harder!!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Yes we can say that child support is a form of slavery. Either way, I see nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with forcing people to take care of their children, even against their will. Just like debt slavery is OK, assuming you entered the debt from your own will.

But I agree that the assymetry (women have a choice to abort and not pay for the child, men do not) is not just. The correct way to solve it would be to give man an option to opt out of child support if he declares that he does not want the child, and only the woman wants it, before the abortion limit is reached. That way we can assure that if its really only woman who wants the child, man would not pay for it. Of course you cannot as a man declare you dont want the child and not pay child support after its impossible to abort it, since that is not a choice even woman can make, and woman cannot react after it to the new circumstances (abort the child for example).


edit on 30/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I completely agree with you. I think men should have the option of 'abortion' in the first 4 months of pregnancy. But there's nothing wrong with being forced to deal with the consequences of one's actions. Men know what it takes to get a woman pregnant. If you take chances, you may lose...

This whole anti-socialist, anti-fenimist rant is just victim talk, IMO



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
If you have sex and father a child it is your responsibility end of story, and all your bitching and bellyaching wont change that. No one forced you into sex, no one else forced you to have unprotected sex, that was your own decision, and so now you have had your fun you want to run away and let everyone else pay for what you have done, that is just pathetic and shows what a lame ass you really are.

As for the question of who gets custody, well that is always a tricky one, far far to often men are excluded from their children's lives because of the bitterness of the ex wife/partner and that needs to stop, providing there is no risk to the children then full access should be allowed in ALL cases. Of course if it can be demonstrated that one of the parents is a potential risk to the child it is a different matter.

I think perhaps one possible solution is that if a woman refuses her ex access to the children without justifiable cause (violent or sexual abuse) then she should not receive child support payments or assistance.

Trying to make this a communist or socialist issue is rather lame though, as if socialists or democrats don't abandon their kids. Remember the only innocent ones are the children, they didn't decide any of it, and they need the support, fathers complaining about support payments should of kept it in their pants or used protection, no one to blame but themselves



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


What is important to understand is that enforcement of child support is a state responsibility and the laws in many states are different and those differences typically biased against fathers.

Paternity is not solely defined as biological paternity. Most states have what is called "presumptive paternity" State of Minnesota for example, paternity is defined as 'fatherhood" and the law stipulates that merely being married to a woman (absent legal separation) obligates a man to pay child support for any child born by that woman, be that child biologically his or not. Therefore, should a man and woman have an "agreement" to separate and see other people for a while and she becomes pregnant, the husband is responsible for the child in most states.

The California definition of presumptive paternity:

A: The law will presume a person is a child’s other parent under the following circumstances (unless proved otherwise to a court). For example, John Doe will be presumed to be the child’s other parent if:

He was married to the child’s mother when the child was conceived or born;

He attempted to marry the mother (even if the marriage was not valid) and the child was conceived or born during the “marriage";

He married the mother after the birth and agreed either to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child; or

He welcomed the child into his home and openly acted as if the child was his own. This concept is called “parentage by estoppel” and means that the court can find that a man is the legal father, even if he is not the biological father, if he has always treated the child as his own.

www.courts.ca.gov...

This law would also cover a child coming into a marriage by another father. If you marry a woman with a child, it is "your child" and you are responsible for child support.

Know your legal rights regarding fatherhood, paternity and marriage. With 50% of marriages failing, it is foolish not to. Regardless, it is completely foolish to not legally separate when separating, both from a financial liability perspective as well as a paternity perspective.

Regardless of your sex, if you do not want to have children, take care of birth control yourself and if you have and your partner/spouse becomes pregnant and you do not want to be responsible for the child, you must act immediately or be prepared to get the check book out for the next 18 years.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


If the man and woman don't get along under the same roof then fine, but the father deserves just as much right to see his child and actually get to raise it and not just pay into the child support system. Your whole argument is judgmental and hypocritical. If this was a rant I would be on here complaining about my personal situation, one thing that I did not do and will not do for the sake of a fair discussion, yours is more of a rant. Yet you would rather drag me into an emotional debate so that you can make personal attacks against me. Nice try.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The problem with this is that most men probably do not want to see their children aborted and most men want to raise their children, not abort them. So yes legally it is the women's choice to abort or not which is an interesting point, but if the child is born you can no longer abort it.

The father should have every legal right to share responsibility RAISING his child and if he opts out maybe then he should pay child support.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Maslo
 


I completely agree with you. I think men should have the option of 'abortion' in the first 4 months of pregnancy. But there's nothing wrong with being forced to deal with the consequences of one's actions. Men know what it takes to get a woman pregnant. If you take chances, you may lose...

This whole anti-socialist, anti-fenimist rant is just victim talk, IMO


Again I never said anything about my personal situation, just sticking to the facts how is that victim talk or a rant?

Or is it that you have socialist political views yet you are in denial about what your own party represents and stands for?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I doubt you could find a study/survey that would support the claim that men who father children are overwhelmingly interested in supporting them. There are communities in society, notably the African American where out of wedlock births are over 80% of children today and most of those children grow up without a father in the home. I think you're making a statement based on personal experience, not the actual behavior in society.

That being said, I doubt that there are men, yourself who are dedicated to playing a role, including a financial in the welfare of your child and that the deck is stacked against them. I have a friend who is totally upside down with his child support, despite the fact that the mother of the child has remarried a wealthy man and clearly needs no additional funds from him. She is forcing those payments out of spite and denying access to the child. That should be against the law, but try to find a judge who will side with the father on that score.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


Yes, well the woman is just as much a participant in unsafe sex as the men. So you are stating that it is crime when a man does it but when a woman does it it's ok? Or are you stating that sexual intercourse is a crime of some sort?

If I am such a victim you must know everything about my situation already because I disclosed that to you somehow?

Again another attempt to drag me into a personal attack based on an emotional reaction, not going to work.

Are you in denial about your socialist democratic views also? There sure are a lot of you here, thats why I came, I figured it would be nice to hear some truth from time to time.

Not only do socialists believe that women should have free abortions they also want to lower the voting age to 15. The list goes on, they want special rights for gay, lesbian, homosexual and transgender people. What do you think the gay marriage thing is? It's a socialist agenda. Marriage laws were originally established to protect families and children, naturally gay people can not be same sex parents. The gay marriage bill gives gays special rights that normally they wouldn't have and it undermines the laws that were there to protect FAMILIES.

The list of things that are morally corrupt and wrong with socialism goes on and on and I don't have to go far to find them since they are all listed on the socialist party USA's website.

What made America the Great was strong Family Values, by abandoning these you will be a part of the moral decay that is now America and will eventually eliminate yourself from the equation with your lack of values and morals you will be led astray and victimize yourselves by your own misdeeds. So who's playing the victim here? You or me? You resort to personal attack instead of dealing with facts, facts are the only thing I have posted and I have given you no reason for personal attack so you are passing judgement on me simple enough. Hypocrisy much?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Obviously strong opinions on this topic, none of them have anything to do with socialism or moral decline. The matter at hand is the laws surrounding child support, which are the only facts germane to the issue at hand, as well as the only facts presented. Presenting a bunch of boiler plate about feminism does not amount to the presentation of facts. As it pertains to communal support of children, you would find the most religous groups, certainly the senior clergy suggest that communal support of children is right in line and in fact a moral obligation of the devout. Therefore the element of society most vocal about moral decline are among the strongest supporters of ensuring proper levels of child support.

How a given society decides to implement policies that ensure that the welfare of children is assured has nothing to do with moral decay or any political ideology.

If anything, committed socialists, like communists would be against any form of child support that was based on parentage at all, rather having children raised by the state, not the family. The policy in the US is based on maintaining the family unit, that in and of itself is counter to a socialist philosophy.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


There are lots of studies I will be happy to dig some up for you. One of the best I have read was in the book "Everything you know is wrong" but they are a bit out of date because that book was published years ago however the same problems persist to this day, one of the interesting studies is the connection between suicide among young males and how it is directly related to and reflects non-custodial parents who pay child support, but I digress.

About your friend, women are encouraged by child support advocates and even judges. Some judges will not allow a woman to file for a divorce without filing for child support. Child support advocates are a big part of the program because they somehow convince the mother that the child support system is a financial benefit, however the child support system doesn't work and as a poster pointed out earlier it is un-enforceable because it violates our civil rights. Now, it sounds like this woman was seeking financial benefits, why else would she marry a wealthy man and not the father of her child, second the child support system does not account for a woman's income or lack thereof it is based on what the non-custodial parent makes. So even if this woman did not want child support, somehow someway they are still going to make the man pay.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


It has everything to do with socialism and communism and I challenge you to show me proof that it does not.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Also just out of curiosity, why are you posting quotes from outside of this thread as if somehow it was posted by me or has any relevance to this topic and why are you not at least posting links to where your "off topic" material originated? Thanks



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
So your argument is that it is not constitutional to make someone be financially responsible for his child?

I do agree that they way men are done is b.s., but allowing a man to get off scott-free financially just because he doesn't get exactly equal time with the kids is absurd. Granted, automatic custody to the mother is silly many times, especially in the case of older boys.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


I never made that argument. I stated that a father should have every opportunity to RAISE his child as the mother and if the man truly does not want to share equal responsibility then maybe they should be ordered to pay child support instead.

And yes the current system is unconstitutional, to force a man to pay into a system to the benefit of another by definition is called involuntary servitude and it is unconstitutional.
edit on 30-6-2011 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


my solution would be to give the k ids the nice big house with enough bedrooms for themselves,
make mom and dad switch out according to the custody agreement. so, each gets there share of the big house and the kids, and each gets a share of the small little efficiency.....
I have a firm belief that the kids should have the opportunity to know mom and dad, even if mom or dad is a total jerk..as long as it is safe to do so...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join