Dead Beat Dad - Completely Unfair Label?

reply to post by windword


Abortion ranges... I mean.. yes I agree morning after bill is an abortion of sorts. But when the physical body comes into being, this is where it gets dodgy, I mean is this baby feeling? Can it sense things now?..

You know.

But ALOT of women are doing this. It isnt a small epidemic. Its huge, for single-ish women .

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MadhatterTheGreat

 

Any man can give up his parental rights, and not have to pay child support, unless, the mother is on public assistance. In that case, he may have to pay.

Giving up Parental Rights

A mom can't be on public assistance unless she files for child support so can't just be on it as the State goes after the father. Think its the same in all States.

1 in 9 women have used the morning after pill.

Thats a pretty high percentage.

Only 17% of women having abortions are teenagers. Just goes to show you that this effects women of every level of society.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by nerbot

 

Yes ,precisely and women should be. Nothing hypocritical about it....

The fact that you ONLY mention men in your statement makes it hypocritical.

reply to post by nerbot


I have said there are deadbeat mums and dads - I myself am a victim of a deadbeat mother so I do know what I am talking about. I have also seen struggling single parents. And its no easy ride for them even with child support.

So your point is what?

.. Okay well dream away. But I for one dont want to pay for dead beats child... tax payers deserve better and so do the children.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Here's some information on fetal pain.

The International Association for the Study of Pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."

Pain in the postnatal human and models for pain perception have been developed and requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus.

In the fetus there are additional hormonal and neurological differences that can impact on pain perception, including the concept of fetal "awareness" (More? see recent review article).

While the neurological pathway of cortico-thalamic connections are found at 24–28 weeks of gestation, "..... Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...

Pain is actually a pretty complex perception of sensation. How do we know the difference between a soft touch and a hard jab? Perception.

reply to post by windword


Before third trimester. Okay ,so when they become conciously aware. Makes sense.

The state doesnt want tons of orphans and more complicated relationships with children.
Hence, why abortions are giving out like candy.

It could be likened to an amputation. Of sorts I guess then.

In that case Id say as long as the baby is not able to feel pain then its 100% the womans responsibility as to weather she keeps the baby. Because its not conciously aware..

But if it passes to the 3rd trimester than the man should have rights. Although if they do bring this law into fruition you are going to find not only alot more fathers who are single parents but probably women will literally be killing themselves.

The reason they are having the abortion is because they " cannot cope". Although I think a percentage might be " lazy". These ones are probably just confused.

Here's the issue w/ the current system as it stands.

1. It creates an incentive for women to get pregnant.
2. There is no accounting for any children a support payer is currently raising. All the system cares about is collecting support even if it hurts other children.

I paid over 2k per month in child support to an ex who did not work and lived entirely on the support. In my State that is not something you can go to court over, there is no accountability on the custodial parent's part. My child should have had the best of everything and instead was raised practically in poverty so everyone could live on that support.

This included moving my child across the country with no notification. Not only did I still have to pay support without visitation, I even had another State coming after me for support because the custodial parent thought they could collect 2X. Guess who had to pay the legal bills to prove I was already paying in another State? Even after that they are still sending me letters.

When I finally tracked her down, my ex managed to pull a fast one by going to the support office and claiming remarriage and adoption of my child was occurring. They stopped all support collections at that time.

Fast forward several years, just before my child turned 18 the custodial parent went back in and managed to re-open support. Now I suddenly owe tens of thousands of dollars for those years, am considered criminally delinquent and am having to spend money hiring another attorney just to fix this mess.

I never minded paying support though I regret not seeing my child all those years. The system used to be the opposite, custodial parents often received no support. All they've done is put a typical big government fix in place that swung everything to the opposite extreme.

This is such a controversial topic

"Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain"

My gut instinct tells me YES this baby has reflexes cos it has pain. I mean why would a baby try to escape something that it feels nothing about??.. Makes no sense. But I am willing to go with the latest scientific findings/results.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Also in 2005, Neil Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He questions the value of such data:


Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however, that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially incorrect.

He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized.[9] “A fetus,” Mellor told the NYTimes, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.” Nevertheless, several studies show that during pregnancy fetuses have phases of wake; and it is clear that even during sleep pain can be felt.[10"

This may account for the fact that most people have no recollections of being in the womb.

reply to post by ecoparity


Its all a costly mess. Yes, relationships are complicated. And I think its sad what the " children" have to go through.

I think in support cases all receipts or transactions made with child support payments need to be recorded.

I know of plenty of instances where the mother uses the child support to get drunk and buy drugs. Granted, the child is fed and clothed, that 'drug and booze' money should be put into an account for the child that can't be touched until said child is 18. That money is for the welfare and well being of that child, not for the parent to go party hard with it or go to the salon to get her hair or nails done.

Dear lord! Some of these stories are unbelievable! Who allows a woman to collect 2k and use it to live on for herself? How is that money not 100 percent the child's? Insanity.

I pray my husband and I never mess it up so bad - we can't work it out. So far - in 15 years of marriage - through all the ups and downs - we worked it out. These stories, make me glad, I've done so. Scary!

Cirque

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Its perfectly fair, and its perfectly reasonable.

There is a large debate to be had as far as mens rights, but regardless, if you are man enough to stick it in, but not man enough to support your CHILD, you are a deadbeat. Flat out.

But it is completely ok for a mother to get an abortion because she doesn't want the responsibility to have to support a child?
That is completely retarded.

You see the courts favor the mother way too much in this matter.

It isn't even a scale that is imbalanced, it is a goddamn seesaw!

Originally posted by kimish
I think in support cases all receipts or transactions made with child support payments need to be recorded.

I know of plenty of instances where the mother uses the child support to get drunk and buy drugs. Granted, the child is fed and clothed, that 'drug and booze' money should be put into an account for the child that can't be touched until said child is 18. That money is for the welfare and well being of that child, not for the parent to go party hard with it or go to the salon to get her hair or nails done.

You know? Do you know how much it costs to feed, cloth and house the children in question? How much of their support money goes for housing? Do the children have their own rooms? Do they participate in sports or other activities that they have to driven to and require $ play? What about medical and dental expenses, do they wear braces?

Do these women that you "know" have jobs of their own? Are they allowed disposable income?

reply to post by RothchildRancor

But it is completely ok for a mother to get an abortion because she doesn't want the responsibility to have to support a child? That is completely retarded. You see the courts favor the mother way too much in this matter. It isn't even a scale that is imbalanced, it is a goddamn seesaw!

It's fair. If a woman refuses to abort your seed, you can abort your parental rights.

The issue is that there is no initiative in this country to address the real problem, that our urban and inner city areas have become part of an American caste system where there are no or very few resources to break the poverty cycle.

We can discuss the concepts of "self imposed poverty" for the next 20 years, it still won't solve the real issue.

We need real, very long term solutions. Like finding intelligent, caring Black brothers and sisters willing to take the lead in creating new educational resources in these communities and a State and Federal program to put the money needed into it.

We need schools that focus on supporting the kids who want to achieve and we need to remove those who do not from those schools, maybe a tiered system using different schools if necessary.

Expand the school lunch program to provide these kids with 3 meals per day and uniforms at no cost to the students would help attendance. Expand curriculum with vocational programs, family planning, programs that teach interpersonal skills, language, etc to give those kids all the tools they need to break the cycle.

We have to look at the short term investment of building a better, community focused educational system that gives impoverished kids a real, working way to build a solid life vs the long term gains in reduced crime, violence and the benefit of talent / brain power currently being wasted / under utilized. We won't see the benefit immediately but with a commitment to continue to fund such a program for 100 years we might finally start to do something about the issue.

Just to be clear, this isn't just a "black" thing. There are impoverished communities with people from every race in America. This type of solution can and should be applied everywhere. Maybe we could start by asking the teachers how and where to spend some money, instead of creating BS programs to create artificial test scores so politicians can claim to be solving problems when all they're doing is creating fictional news bytes for campaign purposes.

Originally posted by windword


It's fair. If a woman refuses to abort your seed, you can abort your parental rights.

It is very rare that a mother/father will be allowed to terminate parental rights unless the other parent is married to someone (usually at least a year) who is willing to adopt that child as their own. I have heard of a couple states allowing this (anecdotal only), but it is not the norm in the US anyway.

As for the idea that a man should not be required to a father, it is his responsibility to use appropriate birth control--you know a condom. I hear there is progress a male pill, so all you guys will likely have another option in the future. By having sex, you take the risk and responsibility of having a child. Sorry, there is just no sympathy from me here.

However, I will say that I think our family law system (US, not familiar with others) has a long way to go. While many courts are making progress to 50/50 parenting time and more reasonable child support, many are not. There is a wide margin of child support ordered from one state to another. My husband, at one point, was ordered to pay 25% of his earnings for one child. He was borrowing from his grandmother to stay afloat while living in a crime-ridden area in a 400 sq foot studio apartment. Often, the numbers are not calculated in consideration of real life.

I spend a lot of time on a blended family support board, so I hear stories from all over the country. I will say, it seems dead beat moms (and they are definitely out there) get a lot more slack from the legal system than dead beat dads.

Yano, all these threads ever teach me is that men and women should have more respect for themselves. Stop sleeping around with people you dont consider fit to raise your children and should you actually fall into that situation, use protection. Human beings have put so much thought into preventing pregnancy you'd think we'd be past all the "You are (not) the father" and "4 kids to 4 different dads" on day time Maury

CMON NOW PEOPLE BE REAL!

the way the laws currently stand in regards to abortion "deadbeat dad" IS an unfair label. the woman seems to have a choice as to whether a child is born while the men get none. as long as this holds, men should NOT be forced to pay a cent if they want nothing to do with the child. before the birth a man should be able to say that he does not want the child and thereafter should be off the hook since the choice is the female's alone.

the laws really should be changed to give the father an EQUAL voice in regards to an abortion. if the female does not want the kid then SHE can let it be known before the birth SHE wants nothing to do with the child and would then not have to pay support as that would be on the father who DID want the child., and vice versa. of course in regards to rape (must be proven 100%, no just claiming it was) then of course the "rapist" should have no say in the matter (and yes females can rape too). and the father must be proven with a DNA test to be sure they are the father, if no father is "known" then they should broadcast looking for the father in order to insure they have their fair choice in the matter. if the father can not be found then the child should be let be born in case the father can be located later, the child can then be place in foster care and adopted then if the father is found he can chose to take responsibility or not. this would tend to make sure that ladies would keep track of those they slept with as well as stop them from cutting out a male in spite.

in a case where both parents decide to have the kid but go their separate ways, (like with divorce). there should be no child support at all. the FAIR way of dealing with it is BOTH parents SHARE the responsibility of the child. that is BOTH parents have the kid live with them 50% of the time (probably should live with each one or two months at a time, switching around so both have equal time for different holidays birthdays etc). this would be much fairer than the currant one parent getting screwed in regards to not only rarely (if ever) having the child but forced to pay out on top of it.only in the case of one parent not wanting to take care of the child should child support be required. other than that if both share equally in caring for the child they would each be taking care of the needed expenses while they are living with the child. not only would it be better for BOTH parents involved but also much better for the children. in a case where one parent decides to say move a distance away then THAT parent should shoulder the responsibility of getting the child back and forth., or they can come up with an agreement with the other party about how it will work, it could be in a case like that that the child spend a year at a time at each parents house so as not to interfere too much with schooling and such. and no vacations and such without the other parent KNOWING at all times where the child is and be in contact, so as to avoid kidnapping.

i have known way TOO MANY men that are screwed in a divorce, so that not only do they have to pay much more than they can afford, but they also never see the kids at all. sometimes they are hit so hard by the "alimony and child support", parents will quit a well paying job in order to go on welfare so that they can afford to live themselves. even better is the putting of "deadbeat dads" in jail, because they either don't have a job or barely make enough to live on, thus making it even harder for this person to get a job or a better paying job, not to mention that they also get to "pay for their stay" on top of everything else. i would think that a 50% shared custody would nicely take care of those types of problems.