Rick Santorum To Single Mothers: Government Paternity Tests Or No Welfare

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by LErickson

 

Another reason? Are you speaking of love????

No.
Did you read "love?"

A woman in love would not have the confusion of twenty candidates I think.
And as for my kids, no dna test was needed as they turned out real good looking kids!

Even if they weren't mine I'd be proud to say, "yep, them's my gene pool"!

So you are missing it too.
Please do not respond to me as if you are rebutting my point when it is not my point but your assumption. It makes one of us looks silly.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Annee

 

How should he have said it? Something like..

"Hey if they know who the father is...?

Santorum may not be politically correct but he is correct.

He could have started out with: "Dead Beat Sperm Donors need mandatory paternal DNA testing"

He could have said: "When a man sticks his Hoo Hoo in a Woo Woo - without a raincoat - - he is 100% responsible for that choice and the results of that choice.

Besides stuff like this:

Santorum's version of women's studies includes unaccredited takes on women in combat, working mothers and single mothers. Last month, he stirred controversy when he suggested that women should not serve in combat because of "emotions." He clarified his remarks by saying a man's natural protective instinct might kick in if he had to share combat duties with female soldiers.

During his first U.S. Senate campaign in 1994, Santorum made unwed mothers and welfare reform regular features of his stump speech. Recently, Mother Jones reported that the candidate had once argued that single mothers were "breeding more criminals" and advocated that they should be denied welfare benefits if they refused to identify the child's father. www.huffingtonpost.com...

We need Newt Gingrich as our president. He's got the best ideals and the most experience than any other of the candidates. Including our socialist president. So vote Newt and do the right thing.

Originally posted by Vsc1981
We need Newt Gingrich as our president. He's got the best ideals and the most experience than any other of the candidates. Including our socialist president. So vote Newt and do the right thing.

Now why do I have Trust Issues with Newt?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Wait wait. Let me get this straight.... If some chick puts me on some massive list of potential fathers, I have to get a DNA test or go to jail? Tell me I am misunderstanding this..... That doesn't sound quite legal to me. If this is true, then I am going to have to seriously reconsider moving back to the US.

reply to post by LErickson


Ahh I see, the unmentionable reason.
That is quite easy to explain however.
In that case, I'd take a dna sample of the kid and if that dna ever popped up, well we got our man.
And truly if a woman does not report these kinds of things, they just allow this behavior to continue, as these types will still be on the streets.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Wait wait. Let me get this straight.... If some chick puts me on some massive list of potential fathers, I have to get a DNA test or go to jail? Tell me I am misunderstanding this..... That doesn't sound quite legal to me. If this is true, then I am going to have to seriously reconsider moving back to the US.

It's true.

Although, if you were on some massive list of fathers, you could stall for a very long time until most of the others had been tested, and maybe the father would be found, but, if it came down to it, eventually a judge would "order" you to be tested, and if you failed to follow that order, you would be in contempt of court, get a bench warrant, and go to jail.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think that just about seals it for me then. I will probably not be returning the the US.
I would think they would have to at least prove something before being ordered by a judge.... As with any aspect of the law, I am sure some people are exempt though

reply to post by Annee

He could have said: "When a man sticks his Hoo Hoo in a Woo Woo - without a raincoat - - he is 100% responsible for that choice and the results of that choice.

This is the part that I often had to remind myself when I worked for Child Support Enforcement. All of the stories suck, and both parties always have sad stories, and the children are always the victims, and sometimes it hurt to order the enforcement, and other times it hurt to hear about the struggling custodial parent with no support, etc., etc......

BUT..... I could always set my mind straight by remembering that both parties made a conscious decision to ignore birth control, ignore condoms, ignore the very easy last second maneuver that I perfected by age 16, and instead they chose to wrecklessly bring an innocent life into this world, so screw their whiny stories!

They had their 5 minutes of selfish fun, and they had a dozen opportunities before and during that fun to make better decisions, and the mother had somewhere between 1 and 6 months to make a more difficult decision, but now that a 5 year old needs new shoes for school the parents need to wear their mistake with pride and honor and buckle down and take care of the dam kid, and I don't care who thinks who is guilty, or who thinks who got the short end of the stick, the focus now belongs on the kid!

Sure, it was a sort of indoctrination that one needs to work those cases, but it is true. I've know plenty of sluts and gigolos, swingers, hookers, strippers, and drunk partiers that have managed to go decades without accidentally bringing an innocent life into this world. If some of the slutty airheaded guys and gals I know can manage to be responsible for at least 10 seconds, then everyone can manage it, and the ones that decide to ignore the risk have no right to complain.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I think that just about seals it for me then. I will probably not be returning the the US.

I would think they would have to at least prove something before being ordered by a judge.... As with any aspect of the law, I am sure some people are exempt though

If you got the order to appear, and you could prove you were out of the country, or incapacitated, or in jail, or something, then I would hope a judge would use common sense and release you from the obligation, but there is no guarantee. I've seen judges order very ridiculous things.

Ok as someone who has needed welfare before...

1) You have to pursue child support in order to receive welfare benefits.
2) If you consider using food stamps to buy groceries and welfare to buy diapers and having nothing left more attractive than working, then you are flippin crazy.

That's all I have to say.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Annee

 

He could have said: "When a man sticks his Hoo Hoo in a Woo Woo - without a raincoat - - he is 100% responsible for that choice and the results of that choice.

This is the part that I often had to remind myself when I worked for Child Support Enforcement. All of the stories suck, and both parties always have sad stories, and the children are always the victims, and sometimes it hurt to order the enforcement, and other times it hurt to hear about the struggling custodial parent with no support, etc., etc......

BUT..... I could always set my mind straight by remembering that both parties made a conscious decision to ignore birth control, ignore condoms, ignore the very easy last second maneuver that I perfected by age 16, and instead they chose to wrecklessly bring an innocent life into this world, so screw their whiny stories!

Absolutely!

My biggest complaint is - - - "we" (society) are still in the macho archaic mindset that its OK for men to screw around - - - but if the woman gets pregnant - - it is her fault.

This is what needs to be changed - - - by how something is worded. To start with.

reply to post by Annee


You quote the Huffington Post? Nuff said. We are done here.

I oh so dislike santorum....
I really do...

but, what the heck is everyone having a fit about??
the child has the right to have the support from the father...
the state has the right to recoup some of the cost of the welfare programs...
the mother has the right to the support of the child's father....
and, well....
the father has the right to know that he has offspring in this world, and the right to play an active role in the child's life!!

I've seen fathers run out and offer no support to mom or child..
and I've seen women who try to keep the dad in the dark and strip him of any parental rights....

you'd think that unless dad is a total smuck who is gonna be a destructive influence on the kid, that no one would have a problem with this!!!

So what? I think I may vote for Rick if Ron does not show improvement. Of course the gals think this is the end of the world, God forbid a man find out his child-bearerer conned him into raising and supporting a child that is not his flesh and blood but instead a result of the milkman's whipping cream. Hey ladies, would it not be nice to go thru life and never hear accusations that the kid ain't his? Would it not be nice to shut his trap forever, never accusing you of being unfaithful? If the men were the ones who carried the child women would be applauding Rick, hell this would be mandatory already. Scream and yell all ya want, pretty soon DNA test kits will be in all Walmarts and Walgreens, and the days of a man raising another man's child unknowingly will be forgotten history. Any man who does not have the DNA tests done at birth already is a fool. pssst...men lie the most, women tell the biggest lie - it's yo baby...Chris Rock said that.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Annee

 

You quote the Huffington Post? Nuff said. We are done here.

Grow up!

I try to diversify where I get my information.

However - - - that is the link in the OP.

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
Of course the gals think this is the end of the world, God forbid a man find out his child-bearerer conned him into raising and supporting a child that is not his flesh and blood but instead a result of the milkman's

You lost?

Maybe you should stick to the subject.

Morality cannot be legislated. Well, it can, I suppose, but not without the effect of us devolving into the dark ages. Bringing back a higher level of morality into our culture has to be a grass roots movement. The government needs to stay out of it. And, a single mother could be the sluttiest woman in her city, but it still shouldn't matter when it comes to receiving benefits. Her child deserves to be fed, clothed, and housed properly no matter if she knows who the father is or not. Human rights shouldn't depend on whether you agree with a person's morality and lifestyle or not.

What this ALL boils down to is: The human population is about to exceed the planets ability to sustain.

Why dont we just give everyone birth control, abolish abortions and limit child rearing to x1 child per couple like in China...Yeah, that might work!

Seriously though, around my town, many women keep having babies because they know they will get that extra income from the health department.....the more you have, the more $$ you get.

I'm not sure if forcing the fathers name will help...But I am for it because quite honestly, I am so tired of paying for some people to keep having more children at my expense....I have my own family to worry about ya know...

My biggest complaint is - - - "we" (society) are still in the macho archaic mindset that its OK for men to screw around - - - but if the woman gets pregnant - - it is her fault. This is what needs to be changed - - - by how something is worded. To start with.

reply to post by Annee


Well work must be done on how some woman view it too. I have known quite a few that were in the mindset that get pregnant and think that the guy who was a bum in the first place , that by them getting pregnant it will change that. Lets not be naive and ignore one side or the other. I get disgusted by the way some guys treat their children. If a woman isn't using any form of bc and the guy won't use a condom and they have sex who's fault is it when the woman gets pregnant? We need to stop pushing on who is too blame and be more concerned about addressing the real issue's. I am not against welfare for single mothers. I am against people abusing the system by taking more than their fare share. How many children do they get to have before we say too many? Why so many men not contributing? Make sure that both people are doing what is right by their children. Then take that into account when allocating benefits. After a while we have to question the competency for decision making these people have.