What if dual parentage was mandarory?

B

bluntc0ncussi0n

New Member
Jurisdiction
New York
I was raised by a single mother, and my father wasn't exactly deadbeat per se since he did stick around till I was 3, and because of my experiences growing up that way, I believe the concept of child support is a joke. A mother can happily take any agreed amount of money from the father and not even spend a single penny of it on the child they have together; she could take all of that money and spend it at a casino if she wanted to! Why is child support mandatory but not dual parentage? If a man gets a girl pregnant, he should either agree to parent the child with her or agree not to. It's simple. If he wishes not to raise the child with her then that child should be aborted or adopted. Also simple. I don't understand why this isn't being done already. I can understand abortion being a dark topic in the views of Pro-Life advocates, views which I am not entirely agreeing or disagreeing upon (saying that a sperm cell, egg cell, embryo, fetus, etc. are just as much alive as we are as human beings, such as a child going to school or a typical person working at a store) but perhaps their dark opinions are becoming so ostensible and widespread that these opinions are being spread to adoption centers as well, which isn't necessarly advocates' fault. My ex is fully Russian but was adopted by two white parents fairly late into her childhood. She remembers very clearly living in the adoption center reminiscing over things like how she used to have to guard all of her food extremely carefully if she ever had any because her other housemates would steal it, and that she honestly thought she was going to live there permanently until she aged out at 16 (she has friends who have apparently "aged out" and that most kids at the adoption center she was at, as well as the vast majority of other local centers she researched online once she got a computer, simply age kids out because the centers don't have the resources to keep kids on after age 16. I know people who have also been to juvenile detention centers and they basically sound identical to adoption centers based on my ex's description of having lived in one for 12 years. So I can understand the idea of adoption centers having a dark connotation to it. However, that could be fixed too, if they are all made to look like retirement homes instead, since I've been inside those and I wouldn't say they look quite like 5 star hotels, but they do look akin to a very big, yet simple, traditional family home. They usually are much nicer looking, the staff are much more vigilant of anything unusual going on, and they seem to get together all the time and play bingo and maybe even go on field trips (okay maybe we shouldn't bring a bunch of crazy old folks out on a field trip, but that would be a great experience for any kind of kid especially an orphan. I know if I got to go to Six Flags in a group of like six kids supervised by one or maybe two staff members, even if I was an oprhan I would still remember that event for the rest of my life and would've honestly thought the whole thing was just SO AWESOME.) Despite seeming way more feasible and definitely more societally beneficial than sending a man to Mars, even the most qualified experts don't seem to know when such a selfish and nefarious activity like single parentage will be outlawed. This part of the law just seems really underdeveloped and corrupt to me. A law that is thoroughly evaluated is a law that cannot be manipulated. That is one thing that any legal expert will tell you. If the law is easily manipulated, then it is by definition a corrupt law. If the government(s) that placed these laws doesn't repeal or reevaluate them then that government is engaging in said corruption. If the government is engaged in corrupt activities, for whatever the purpose or to whoever's benefit, what is to say that government isn't itself corrupt?
 
Last edited:
Gubmints get away with things thugs, terrorists, and gangsters can't.

Take stealing a person's hard earned pennies BEFORE you get 10¢, gubmints steal a 4¢ or something along that line
 
army judge said:
Gubmints get away with things thugs, terrorists, and gangsters can't.

Take stealing a person's hard earned pennies BEFORE you get 10¢, gubmints steal a 4¢ or something along that line
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it right. The U.S. "Gubmint" got away with slavery of black people as well as dark-skinned Jamaicans and Dominicans for over 150 years, and even that came to an end. The British enforced slavery for even longer until they eventually decided to abolish it all together starting with the homeland and then each of their major territories, starting with North America, where most slaves we're being utilized within the British Empire. My question is why are we still living like we belong in the history books?
 
cbg said:
That is not a legal question; this is a legal board.
Click to expand...
How is this not a legal question? It's definitely not one about science or politics so you tell me where I should put it. If not then it belongs here (by definition believe it or not, in case you get triggered).
 
bluntc0ncussi0n said:
If a man gets a girl pregnant, he should either agree to parent the child with her or agree not to. It's simple. If he wishes not to raise the child with her then that child should be aborted or adopted. Also simple. I don't understand why this isn't being done already.
Click to expand...

Because what you are apparently saying is that if one parent doesn't want to parent that means he or she gets to deprive the other parent of raising the child, too. In other words, you are saying either the kid gets two parents or none. And that would violate the Constitution. It would also not be good for the child. Being raised by one parent is likely to be better for the child than growing up in an orphanage.

And I'm going to guess that your position is largely tied to the idea of a parent (usually the male) of being able to avoid the child support obligation when he/she does not want to be involved in parenting. In other words, I suspect this is more about avoiding child support for that parent than having the child's best interests at heart.

Might it be that you are unhappy about being tagged for child support for a child you didn't want?
 
One parent would be deprived of the immediate opportunity yes, but not his or her right.

The fact that I said the kid should have two parents or none is one of the key points I made
Tax Counsel said:
Because what you are apparently saying is that if one parent doesn't want to parent that means he or she gets to deprive the other parent of raising the child, too.
Click to expand...


The parent wouldn't be deprived of raising the child, just the immediate opportunity to do so. The parent's rights to raise a child doesn't change which seems to be what you're getting at.

The fact that a child should be raised by two parents or more or none at all is exactly the point I'm trying to make. How would that possibly go against the Constitution? And as I've stated an orphanage would be a perfectly acceptible place for a child to stay at if they werent treated like juvenile delinquents and instead like retired people but in reverse.

The purpose of a nation is to have all its denizens not just in line but also receiving the choice to live in a way that is in their own individual best interest. If a mother has a right to neglect an innocent living being and use it as a source of income, then the right to chose to deny a person that ability doesn't seem so bad, yet it's "unconstitutional." Explain.
 
So, what new law are you proposing should be implemented or what existing one should be repealed? why are we still living like we belong in the history books? is a societal question, not a legal one.
 
cbg said:
So, what new law are you proposing should be implemented or what existing one should be repealed? why are we still living like we belong in the history books? is a societal question, not a legal one.
Click to expand...
I'm not proposing anything. I'm asking why it doesn't exist already. What exactly would be the problems society would have to deal with if it did, and would they outweigh the problems that exist instead?
 
You're still not making clear exactly how you would mandate that every child have two parents. That is what you're trying to get at, isn't it?
 
bluntc0ncussi0n said:
The fact that a child should be raised by two parents or more or none at all is exactly the point I'm trying to make. How would that possibly go against the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Because the Supreme Court has held that each parent has the right to parent his/her child unless the state has proven the parent unfit. Your scheme would have the state deprive the parent of that right not because the parent is unfit but because the other parent simply didn't want to be bothered with raising the child.

What you propose is not in the best interest of the child nor in the best interest of society at large despite your effort to cast it that way. The only one it helps is that parent who doesn't want to be bothered raising his/her kid. I see this as nothing more than way to benefit that parent by avoiding the child support obligation. Neither parent gets the kid, dump the kid in an orphanage, have the state pay for the care and the uninterested parent now has no responsibility at all — everyone else in society pays for it instead. You may not want to admit that's the real motivation (though I'd be impressed if you did) but I think that's pretty apparent nevertheless.
 
bluntc0ncussi0n said:
I was raised by a single mother, and my father wasn't exactly deadbeat per se since he did stick around till I was 3, and because of my experiences growing up that way, I believe the concept of child support is a joke. A mother can happily take any agreed amount of money from the father and not even spend a single penny of it on the child they have together; she could take all of that money and spend it at a casino if she wanted to! Why is child support mandatory but not dual parentage? If a man gets a girl pregnant, he should either agree to parent the child with her or agree not to. It's simple. If he wishes not to raise the child with her then that child should be aborted or adopted. Also simple. I don't understand why this isn't being done already. I can understand abortion being a dark topic in the views of Pro-Life advocates, views which I am not entirely agreeing or disagreeing upon (saying that a sperm cell, egg cell, embryo, fetus, etc. are just as much alive as we are as human beings, such as a child going to school or a typical person working at a store) but perhaps their dark opinions are becoming so ostensible and widespread that these opinions are being spread to adoption centers as well, which isn't necessarly advocates' fault. My ex is fully Russian but was adopted by two white parents fairly late into her childhood. She remembers very clearly living in the adoption center reminiscing over things like how she used to have to guard all of her food extremely carefully if she ever had any because her other housemates would steal it, and that she honestly thought she was going to live there permanently until she aged out at 16 (she has friends who have apparently "aged out" and that most kids at the adoption center she was at, as well as the vast majority of other local centers she researched online once she got a computer, simply age kids out because the centers don't have the resources to keep kids on after age 16. I know people who have also been to juvenile detention centers and they basically sound identical to adoption centers based on my ex's description of having lived in one for 12 years. So I can understand the idea of adoption centers having a dark connotation to it. However, that could be fixed too, if they are all made to look like retirement homes instead, since I've been inside those and I wouldn't say they look quite like 5 star hotels, but they do look akin to a very big, yet simple, traditional family home. They usually are much nicer looking, the staff are much more vigilant of anything unusual going on, and they seem to get together all the time and play bingo and maybe even go on field trips (okay maybe we shouldn't bring a bunch of crazy old folks out on a field trip, but that would be a great experience for any kind of kid especially an orphan. I know if I got to go to Six Flags in a group of like six kids supervised by one or maybe two staff members, even if I was an oprhan I would still remember that event for the rest of my life and would've honestly thought the whole thing was just SO AWESOME.) Despite seeming way more feasible and definitely more societally beneficial than sending a man to Mars, even the most qualified experts don't seem to know when such a selfish and nefarious activity like single parentage will be outlawed. This part of the law just seems really underdeveloped and corrupt to me. A law that is thoroughly evaluated is a law that cannot be manipulated. That is one thing that any legal expert will tell you. If the law is easily manipulated, then it is by definition a corrupt law. If the government(s) that placed these laws doesn't repeal or reevaluate them then that government is engaging in said corruption. If the government is engaged in corrupt activities, for whatever the purpose or to whoever's benefit, what is to say that government isn't itself corrupt?
Click to expand...

Wow - I wish there was a laugh reaction button.

Child support is only a joke in the way it is not enforced. But the concept of child support – in that the noncustodial parent should provide for what they would have if they were still in the home – is not a joke. But it is a joke that my ex husband hasn't paid child support for our child or his other three kids in almost 3 years. It is a joke that he owes me half of daycare and has yet in almost 4 years, to pay it. I've spent 20,000 and counting on daycare for our daughter. He also owes me half unreimbursed medical – but luckily I'm in the military so I have TRICARE. He is only court ordered to pay $331 a month for all four kids. For our daughter it's like $86 a month. When he has a job, I get $25 a week that goes into an account I set up for her when she got SSI for 5 months. Do you really think $86 a month is really enough to help take care of a kid? Child support is for taking care of the child – so housing, food, clothing, etc. Are there people who spend it on other stuff – sure. That's not the majority though.

Now your "if a man gets a girl pregnant…" why should the woman "have" to abort or be forced to give it up for adoption if the sperm donor doesn't want to be a parent? How does that make any sense in your brain? Why are forced abortions not being done? Oh I don't know, maybe because that's a gross invasion of people's rights? We already have politicians trying to take a woman's right to an abortion away and repeal Roe v Wade. Now you want to force women to have an abortion or put their kid up for adoption even if they are fully capable of raising that child? Are you high?

Your experience seems to be clouding your judgement a bit. Your father leaving at 3, and I'll assume you didn't ever see again, that's a deadbeat. My mom was a deadbeat parent…she started an affair when I was five (and I'im the middle of five kids), my youngest brother was the result of that affair (we found out during the divorce when I was 18). She would take off to see the guy every weekend she had off. So she was never around much from 5-18 years old. That's a deadbeat.

I don't know what Russian adoption centers are like or even foster homes in America. I've heard bad and good about foster care in America. I'm not sure if they still have what used to be called orphanages in America. I don't know what your point is about "adoption centers" though. "Retirement homes" aren't always nice. Just because something looks nice doesn't mean it is.

I don't even know what your point is in your rambling, incoherent speech. You're talking about child support, then orphans, then sending a man to Mars…

So it seems you don't like single parents…is it because of your mom. Do you resent your mom? My dad was basically a single parent and raised the five of us while our mom went running around. We all turned out fine. Fully functioning adults. I am a single mother – because I left my abusive, drug addict ex husband. That's why his first marriage failed (I found out after). But I'm doing just fine raising our daughter without him and I have a stable job – and she has medical issues and I still manage to take care of her. I was married when I had her – so what do you say about married couples who have kids, then get divorced? What should happen to those kids? I mean you want unmarried women to abort their pregnancies if the sperm donor doesn't want to participate…so what happens when a marriage ends and the sperm donor in that relationship doesn't want to support his kids? Or the incubator doesn't want to be a mom?

Pretty sure we all know our government has corruption in it and has since this county started…you just need to figure out what your issue is with. Is it with single parents? Child support? Orphans? What is it?
 
bluntc0ncussi0n said:
One parent would be deprived of the immediate opportunity yes, but not his or her right.

The fact that I said the kid should have two parents or none is one of the key points I made


The parent wouldn't be deprived of raising the child, just the immediate opportunity to do so. The parent's rights to raise a child doesn't change which seems to be what you're getting at.

The fact that a child should be raised by two parents or more or none at all is exactly the point I'm trying to make. How would that possibly go against the Constitution? And as I've stated an orphanage would be a perfectly acceptible place for a child to stay at if they werent treated like juvenile delinquents and instead like retired people but in reverse.

The purpose of a nation is to have all its denizens not just in line but also receiving the choice to live in a way that is in their own individual best interest. If a mother has a right to neglect an innocent living being and use it as a source of income, then the right to chose to deny a person that ability doesn't seem so bad, yet it's "unconstitutional." Explain.
Click to expand...

There's no "fact' that a child should be raised by two parents. Plenty of people are raised by single parents and turn out fine. Or their grandparents. Or are adopted. Or foster parents. There are any number of possibilities of how someone is raised.

You need to cut back on the drugs and booze man. I don't know what your issue is with single mothers but you need to seek some counseling for it. Most of us don't get ANY child support. Or any support at all.
 
Even if your father had been in the home when you were growing up, you weren't guaranteed a Disneyland childhood. No court would order him to play catch with you in the backyard, or teach you to ride a bike, or read you bedtime stories. No court would order your parents to spend a certain amount of their income on what you wanted. As long as you had the basics to live, it was still and always totally up to your parents to decide how they wished to parent, how much time to spend with you, and how to spend their money. Children who are truly neglected and abused do have protections via CPS.

Not all parents bail at the same time. Should you have been ripped away from your mom at the age of 3 and placed in an orphanage? What if you were 12? Not all parents leave entirely voluntarily. They can get sick, die, be deployed, have a job transfer, need to relocate to care for an elderly family member, or any number of other things.

I don't know where you got the notion that orphanages were like 5 star hotels where the kids regularly get to go to amusement parks and have super loving and attentive staff. What you describe sounds more like an exclusive and very expensive boarding school. Considering how difficult it is to find good foster parents, teachers, day car workers, and other child care givers, I'm not sure how you think these orphanages could be staffed.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top