MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2016 14:47:09 GMT -5
I understand that, but I think it's a function of the woman being 100% affected by the pregnancy and the man being 0% affected. It's her body. The only thing he could do is try to get a court order for her to complete the pregnancy and for him to adopt it after the birth. Fair for him, but IMO grossly unfair for the woman because she's basically being treated like a baby vessel instead of a person with her own rights. I still don't think you are understanding what I am saying. If a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't he is just shit out of luck. Well I think it should work the other way, too. If a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, then he gets to sign away his rights to the child and that's that. As a woman who is 100% pro-life, I still had the option of putting the baby up for adoption. So I could terminate my parental rights but it appears that a man doesn't have the same option. That's what I'm calling unfair. Why can I give a baby up for adoption and cease all responsibility but a man can't do the same? I don't understand... as far as I know a man CAN say "I'm not paying support and I want to terminate all parental rights". At least in NJ I didn't think they could force you to pay CS if you terminate your rights.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2016 14:49:06 GMT -5
Per the 2014 census 80% of the 12M single parent households were headed by single mothers. Roughly 45% of the kids raised in these households lived below the poverty line so I'm guessing many are benefiting from food stamps, WIC, after school programs and so on that are funded by taxpayers. Children raised by a single father saw a poverty rate of 21% which was much closer to the 13% poverty rate for kids raised in 2 parent households. I think you're taking it as a personal attack when it's merely the fact that most people realize single mothers are more likely to be on taxpayer assistance than any single fathers or two parent families.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 14:49:45 GMT -5
I still don't think you are understanding what I am saying. If a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't he is just shit out of luck. Well I think it should work the other way, too. If a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, then he gets to sign away his rights to the child and that's that. As a woman who is 100% pro-life, I still had the option of putting the baby up for adoption. So I could terminate my parental rights but it appears that a man doesn't have the same option. That's what I'm calling unfair. Why can I give a baby up for adoption and cease all responsibility but a man can't do the same? I don't understand... as far as I know a man CAN say "I'm not paying support and I want to terminate all parental rights". At least in NJ I didn't think they could force you to pay CS if you terminate your rights. I don't think that is correct, at least not in my state.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2016 14:51:41 GMT -5
I'm also almost certain that there is a huge socioeconomic difference between the single fathers with full custody and single mothers with full custody...
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 14:51:58 GMT -5
Per the 2014 census 80% of the 12M single parent households were headed by single mothers. Roughly 45% of the kids raised in these households lived below the poverty line so I'm guessing many are benefiting from food stamps, WIC, after school programs and so on that are funded by taxpayers. Children raised by a single father saw a poverty rate of 21% which was much closer to the 13% poverty rate for kids raised in 2 parent households. I think you're taking it as a personal attack when it's merely the fact that most people realize single mothers are more likely to be on taxpayer assistance than any single fathers or two parent families. I didn't take it as a personal attack at all. I was stating a fact. I know several single moms who can afford their children without one cent from a man.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 14:52:23 GMT -5
I still don't think you are understanding what I am saying. If a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't he is just shit out of luck. Well I think it should work the other way, too. If a woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, then he gets to sign away his rights to the child and that's that. As a woman who is 100% pro-life, I still had the option of putting the baby up for adoption. So I could terminate my parental rights but it appears that a man doesn't have the same option. That's what I'm calling unfair. Why can I give a baby up for adoption and cease all responsibility but a man can't do the same? I don't understand... as far as I know a man CAN say "I'm not paying support and I want to terminate all parental rights". At least in NJ I didn't think they could force you to pay CS if you terminate your rights. You can't do that in my state. Parental rights can't be voluntarily given up unless there is another guy willing to adopt.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 14:54:19 GMT -5
I'm also almost certain that there is a huge socioeconomic difference between the single fathers with full custody and single mothers with full custody... There are also huge socioeconomic differences between people who go to college versus those who drop out of school. Should we have different rules based on socioeconomic status?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 14:54:50 GMT -5
I don't understand... as far as I know a man CAN say "I'm not paying support and I want to terminate all parental rights". At least in NJ I didn't think they could force you to pay CS if you terminate your rights. You can't do that in my state. Parental rights can't be voluntarily given up unless there is another guy willing to adopt. That's what I assumed was the law in all states.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2016 14:57:52 GMT -5
Per the 2014 census 80% of the 12M single parent households were headed by single mothers. Roughly 45% of the kids raised in these households lived below the poverty line so I'm guessing many are benefiting from food stamps, WIC, after school programs and so on that are funded by taxpayers. Children raised by a single father saw a poverty rate of 21% which was much closer to the 13% poverty rate for kids raised in 2 parent households. I think you're taking it as a personal attack when it's merely the fact that most people realize single mothers are more likely to be on taxpayer assistance than any single fathers or two parent families. I didn't take it as a personal attack at all. I was stating a fact. I know several single moms who can afford their children without one cent from a man. So then you're taking your own personal view and projecting that onto the rest of the country which isn't accurate.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:03:36 GMT -5
It sounds like we need to force women to work full-time. Based on what I bolded, 85% of women living below poverty line aren't working full-time. Isn't the obvious answer to get skills and a full time job?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 15:04:43 GMT -5
I'd be in pretty sorry shape without child support. Sucks, and it's my fault for not being more career oriented earlier on, but it is what it is I guess.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:05:21 GMT -5
I didn't take it as a personal attack at all. I was stating a fact. I know several single moms who can afford their children without one cent from a man. So then you're taking your own personal view and projecting that onto the rest of the country which isn't accurate. So projecting the 26% of women living in poverty (or whatever the % is, I cant go back when I'm quoting) is accurate? And the based on sroo's quote it appears the reason the majority of women are living in poverty is less than 15% of them actually work full time. Umm, if you aren't working full time of course you will be poor!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 15:07:26 GMT -5
It can be hard to work full-time when you have several kids and daycare costs are higher than you would bring in.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:09:35 GMT -5
I think we are getting off track talking about who can afford what. My point was that I find it very unfair that a woman can wash her hands of a baby (either via abortion or adoption) and a man is stuck with her choice. I'm just not ok with that. We claim we want equality but apparently we only want equality when it works in our favor. We can claim it is "for the children" but it if the woman can give up her parental rights via adoption (or just handing the baby over to foster care if she doesn't want it an neither does anyone else) than a man should have the same rights.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:10:05 GMT -5
It can be hard to work full-time when you have several kids and daycare costs are higher than you would bring in. Except if you are truly poor then you get subsidized childcare
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 15, 2016 15:11:04 GMT -5
I don't see how you could force a woman to keep a baby to term because that's a slippery slope. If you're going to start doing that then let's also start sterilizing men/women who pop out kids like pez dispensers when they can't afford them. I'm good with that.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Aug 15, 2016 15:14:48 GMT -5
Except if the baby is aborted or adopted, the father doesn't have to pay either...
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2016 15:15:40 GMT -5
So then you're taking your own personal view and projecting that onto the rest of the country which isn't accurate. So projecting the 26% of women living in poverty (or whatever the % is, I cant go back when I'm quoting) is accurate? And the based on sroo's quote it appears the reason the majority of women are living in poverty is less than 15% of them actually work full time. Umm, if you aren't working full time of course you will be poor! We can slice the numbers however you want but the majority of households living in poverty are single mother households most of which I'm going to guess are receiving taxpayer assistance. If you want to take the part time/full time thing one step further saying what they should be doing or should have done how about not having kids in the first place if you can't afford them? That's just as relevant until all states or the feds force people to work full time when receiving assistance.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2016 15:16:50 GMT -5
I don't see how you could force a woman to keep a baby to term because that's a slippery slope. If you're going to start doing that then let's also start sterilizing men/women who pop out kids like pez dispensers when they can't afford them. I'm good with that. As am I but the majority would be outraged if any politician even hinted at it. It's a catch-22 - you can't tell people what to do when it comes to having kids but taxpayers still end up on the hook.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:17:15 GMT -5
So projecting the 26% of women living in poverty (or whatever the % is, I cant go back when I'm quoting) is accurate? And the based on sroo's quote it appears the reason the majority of women are living in poverty is less than 15% of them actually work full time. Umm, if you aren't working full time of course you will be poor! We can slice the numbers however you want but the majority of households living in poverty are single mother households most of which I'm going to guess are receiving taxpayer assistance. If you want to take the part time/full time thing one step further saying what they should be doing or should have done how about not having kids in the first place if you can't afford them? That's just as relevant until all states or the feds force people to work full time when receiving assistance. But I'm not sure why the fact that woman can't seem to work full time once they have children should mean that men are held to a standard that women aren't.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 15, 2016 15:18:52 GMT -5
If you have too many children to make working full time feasible then you should be working in a daycare center that will pay you as well as letting your children attend for free or reduced rates. No sitting around making more babies you aren't capable of caring for.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:18:56 GMT -5
As am I but the majority would be outraged if any politician even hinted at it. It's a catch-22 - you can't tell people what to do when it comes to having kids but taxpayers still end up on the hook. Well then perhaps those that would be outraged should personally feed, house and clothe the children. Because this thread is all about bashing a man "he shouldn't have had sex if he can't support the child" but we never say the same about a woman. Again, why are men held to a different standard? As a woman this really perplexes me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 15:19:48 GMT -5
It can be hard to work full-time when you have several kids and daycare costs are higher than you would bring in. Except if you are truly poor then you get subsidized childcare I'm pretty sure you've never applied. In our State subsidized childcare has a waiting list and depending on the county it can be LONG. I'm trying to help a friend of mine that wants to leave her husband and it's tough. She has 5 kids. Two that would need full time care and 3 that would need after school care. It's looking like it will be about $1520 in child care, which is insane considering she'll probably be making $12-$13/hour to start. But, even so, subsidized childcare is still the taxpayers paying when the Dad doesn't.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 15, 2016 15:21:30 GMT -5
I'd be in pretty sorry shape without child support. Sucks, and it's my fault for not being more career oriented earlier on, but it is what it is I guess. I know but you are aware it's going to end and I hope you are getting your ducks in a row.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2016 15:26:46 GMT -5
As am I but the majority would be outraged if any politician even hinted at it. It's a catch-22 - you can't tell people what to do when it comes to having kids but taxpayers still end up on the hook. Well then perhaps those that would be outraged should personally feed, house and clothe the children. Because this thread is all about bashing a man "he shouldn't have had sex if he can't support the child" but we never say the same about a woman. Again, why are men held to a different standard? As a woman this really perplexes me. I'm sure PLENTY say that about the woman. IMO they are both responsible.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:28:27 GMT -5
Except if you are truly poor then you get subsidized childcare I'm pretty sure you've never applied. In our State subsidized childcare has a waiting list and depending on the county it can be LONG. I'm trying to help a friend of mine that wants to leave her husband and it's tough. She has 5 kids. Two that would need full time care and 3 that would need after school care. It's looking like it will be about $1520 in child care, which is insane considering she'll probably be making $12-$13/hour to start. But, even so, subsidized childcare is still the taxpayers paying when the Dad doesn't. You definitely got me there. No, I've never needed subsidizes child care. In my area it isn't hard to get so I didn't realize it was elsewhere.
Who pays when a woman decides she doesn't want the baby and gives the child up? Not all children are adoptable (umm, is that a word?). I just want men to have the same choice as women (well, excluding abortion because obviously that is not something a man can decide).
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 15, 2016 15:28:38 GMT -5
Well then perhaps those that would be outraged should personally feed, house and clothe the children. Because this thread is all about bashing a man "he shouldn't have had sex if he can't support the child" but we never say the same about a woman. Again, why are men held to a different standard? As a woman this really perplexes me. I'm sure PLENTY say that about the woman. IMO they are both responsible. Yeah any time I've had discussions or even overheard discussions about people on welfare and/or who have kids they can't afford no one is singling out men or women rather it's the parents who created the child.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 15:28:48 GMT -5
Well then perhaps those that would be outraged should personally feed, house and clothe the children. Because this thread is all about bashing a man "he shouldn't have had sex if he can't support the child" but we never say the same about a woman. Again, why are men held to a different standard? As a woman this really perplexes me. I'm sure PLENTY say that about the woman. IMO they are both responsible. Yeah, I think welfare mom bashing is quite rampant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 7:26:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2016 15:29:17 GMT -5
As am I but the majority would be outraged if any politician even hinted at it. It's a catch-22 - you can't tell people what to do when it comes to having kids but taxpayers still end up on the hook. Well then perhaps those that would be outraged should personally feed, house and clothe the children. Because this thread is all about bashing a man "he shouldn't have had sex if he can't support the child" but we never say the same about a woman. Again, why are men held to a different standard? As a woman this really perplexes me. Huh? Financial support wasn't the issue in the OP.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 15, 2016 15:29:54 GMT -5
I'm sure PLENTY say that about the woman. IMO they are both responsible. Yeah, I think welfare mom bashing is quite rampant. I agree.
|
|