Unwed mothers

Author: prefix
Family
WIC
taxpayer

Posts

Total: 168
#31
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@prefix
Why do "we all pay"? If there is a child, then there is a mother and a father. The father needs to pay. If not, there needs be legal remedies. "You do the deed, you fill the need
Like it or not, the child is one of us regardless of what issues mom and dad are afflicted by. We take care of our own. 
#32
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
We take care of our own.
Oh really! Then why are there over 80M unwanted and orphaned children the world over?
Killing Roe V Wade will only add to that number. 









Yeah, we take care of our own. *FP* 
#33
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7

Women shouldn't be allowed to have children unless they are married and that married couple can prove they are financially stable to have them.


Lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to have children either.



Same for gay couples...




Topic's author
#34
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?

You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistence has parents, so maybe they should pay?  


Hmmm. So many things that you heard that were not said.

Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?
Where did you get that idea? I have said nothing into the universe of "being against government assistance for anyone". My question simply has to do with RESPONSIBILITY!
If there is an unwed mother then there is a biological father. He should pay. The government should be "last in line". There was a case recently where a man had seven children with 5 separate women, never married, and never paid support. I paid. You paid.  Duh!

You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistence has parents, so maybe they should pay?  
You equate "government assistance" with "parental assistance". You need to rethink that one.

Why unwed mothers?
Because there is someone 100% responsible. He did the deed, he fills the need. Logic 101.
#35
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh really! Then why are there over 80M unwanted and orphaned children the world over?

Killing Roe V Wade will only add to that number. 
You're a very angry pedant, aren't you?
#36
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
🥱 
#37
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@prefix
I have always been a believer of a biblical standard of living.  God created people and then gave a book on how to make these same people thrive.  When we step out of those bounds, society begins to crumble. There should be no such thing as a unwed mother, BUT since there is, we will have to deal with this.  I do think the father should be held responsible, (child support, etc) maybe even forced to marry the woman, but that may just prove to increase the divorce rates since the father was too reckless and irresponsible with his dong to create a child out of wedlock anyways.  I also think the mother should pay for the same reasons, being irresponsible.  I know I'll sound like a Nazi for this, but if this happens more than a few times (out of wedlock children), then we should consider sterilization of reckless parents. Do we not put people in jail for being reckless to society?  Why not keep them away from being reckless with their private parts?  (reckless is the word of the day)

Both need to grow up and tackle responsibility.
#38
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,079
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@prefix
Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?

You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistence has parents, so maybe they should pay?  
Hmmm. So many things that you heard that were not said.
Hmmm.  You don't know what you said?
Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?
Where did you get that idea? I have said nothing into the universe of "being against government assistance for anyone". My question simply has to do with RESPONSIBILITY!
You said an unwed mother seeking government assistance should not get assistance from the government, they should get it from the biological father, that's a pretty explicit way to say an unwed mother should not be the government's RESPONSIBILITY!

If there is an unwed mother then there is a biological father. He should pay. The government should be "last in line". There was a case recently where a man had seven children with 5 separate women, never married, and never paid support. I paid. You paid.  Duh!
Yeah, I get it, you are against government assistance for unwed mothers.  It probably never occurred to you that not all unwed mothers ask for government assistance, only the ones who aren't getting support of the biological father, Duh!
You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistance has parents, so maybe they should pay?  
You equate "government assistance" with "parental assistance". You need to rethink that one.
I didn't, you did, maybe you need to think about what you write.

You say an unwed mother should not get assistance from the government, she should get assistance from the "biological father", that would be "parental assistance", trust me, a father is a parent, if you don't believe me, you can look it up. 

Why unwed mothers?
Because there is someone 100% responsible. He did the deed, he fills the need. Logic 101.
Anyone who needs government assistance has parents, aren't they 100% responsible? 

How about married mothers who need government assistance, there is someone 100% responsible in that case too, are you against them getting assistance too, or is it just unwed mothers?  

What if the woman was a wed mother and then her husband died, are you against government assistance for widows?  


#39
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
what is your idea for how the child gets their basic survival needs met? Or do you support just letting them starve to death?
If child has where mother and deadbeat dad, is he not of inferior stock? 

It is no different than abortion. Just let inferior stock die, so your people may be stronger. 
Topic's author
#40
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Stop it. Quit letting agenda proceed logic.

If someone loses a job, through not fault of their own, the safety net should kick in. (that is being used as an example and NOT a new topic for debate)

However an unwed mother generally is not faultless, and the guilty parties should be the first in line to pay.

In any event, this forum post was asking a question.

The question was not about who deserves assistance, but who pays.

Since you have NO INFO to contribute, kindly cease.
#41
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,079
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@prefix
Stop it. Quit letting agenda proceed logic.

If someone loses a job, through not fault of their own, the safety net should kick in. (that is being used as an example and NOT a new topic for debate)
But not for unwed mothers, got it.

However an unwed mother generally is not faultless, and the guilty parties should be the first in line to pay.
Unwed mothers are guilty, got it.

In any event, this forum post was asking a question.

The question was not about who deserves assistance, but who pays.
You don’t want to pay for unwedmothers, got it.

Since you have NO INFO to contribute, kindly cease.
You want to control who the government helps, you want tocontrol the responses to your posts, control freak much?
Topic's author
#42
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@Sidewalker
I am seeking information about certain procedures regarding unwed mothers. You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand. Instead you have embarked on an attack on me for even asking the question.  That makes you and anti-intellectual fascist with no redeeming qualities. I had hoped for a better level of discourse than you have provided. Please go away.

32 days later

#43
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
To clarify when you say "who pays?" Do you actually mean "who ought to pay?"?

It would seem that the most logical solution would be to take up a collection from the community based on each person's ability to contribute. We might codify this commonwealth into law. A sort of "tax" as it were. Here's an idea we might also use this fund to provide for the elderly and to maintain our infrastructure.

I think my idea might work provided the wealthiest segment of the population pays into the commonwealth at a commiserate rate to the inordinate profits they enjoy. If only the poor are called upon to subsidize the poor, or even if the wealthy are only **mostly** excluded from this responsibility then I fear the system may well break down to the detriment of those who most need it.
Topic's author
#44
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
But who pays now under the current law?


#45
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
That is governed by complicated statutes which differ by region such that it often requires professionals trained in the law to answer that question on a cade by case basis and the answers they provide are often highly contentious. 

If you want to discuss who is legally and fiscally indemnified ask a lawyer. 

I think I would find the ought to be a more toothsome subject. 
Topic's author
#46
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I can speak from a situation that I am close to, but not involved.

Woman A, has child by Man #1. #1 pays support, then takes complete custody. Cost to the public was minimal as at least one involved party paid the bill.

Woman A has child by #2. #2 pays support, then takes complete custody. . Cost to the public was minimal as at least one involved party paid the bill.

Woman A has child by #3. #3 is destitute, cannot pay, cannot take custody. Cost to the public will probably be a recurring cost month after month and year after year, paid by people who had no part in the situation.

It is rumored that Woman A is pregnant yet again.

And this can be multiplied 24,000,000 times.

What is going on?


#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Again for a better explanation of the laws in your region contact a lawyer 

If you are trying to have a discussion about the implications perhaps we could start with your expectations of a fair amd equitable solution.
Topic's author
#48
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
 perhaps we could start with your expectations of a fair amd equitable solution.
The RESPONSIBLE parties should be held RESPONSIBLE.

There is a bio father and bio mother. These two are primarily RESPONSIBLE both FACTUALLY and FINANCIALLY. 
There are few situations where the bios cannot pay, but many where they do not.
If they cannot pay, then should be excluded from the pool of those who can.
Children should not be a source of income.


The original past was "If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"

The answer is "We all do" under current law. That is inequitable and unacceptable.

This monetizing of the system has made that system self perpetuating and expansive and expensive.

We need a better way.



#49
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Could we talk more about responsibility in this case. What do you mean by responsible?
Topic's author
#50
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean by responsible?
About which are you asking?


Physically responsible

or

Financially responsible 
#51
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Well if there is even a difference why not tell us both along with your reasoning for why they are the responsible party?
Topic's author
#52
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if there is even a difference why not tell us both along with your reasoning for why they are the responsible party?
Are you serious?

Have you tried to look this up?

Obviously not, so here goes....

"being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.

having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role."

definition of "responsible" per Oxford Languages.
#53
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
Yes tha k you but it isn't actually the definitions involved that are perplexing me but to whom you are applying this definition and by what metric. 

When a young lady becomes pregnant whom is most "at fault"?
Topic's author
#54
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Dylan said it best "NO NO NO it ain't me babe"

Do you not know basic biology?

When a young lady becomes pregnant whom is most "at fault"?

The bio father and bio mother are equally  responsible and NO ONE ELSE! ( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g.  rape )).

The "at fault" idea is too loaded for you to use here.

#55
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
 ( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g. rape )).
I'm not sure we can really call rape abnormal unfortunately, for though we wish they would not adults to tend to rape each other rather a lot.

That in mind should you be able to force a young woman to somehow prove she was raped before getting the benefits necessary to care for the child?
Topic's author
#56
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
 I'm not sure we can really call rape abnormal
Then get sure!!!

The rest of your statement seems off topic.

I am seeking information about certain procedures regarding unwed mothers. You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand. Instead you have embarked on  series of tangential topics of little value.
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
I think it is very pertinent. 

Follow my logic.

No woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant if they were raped.

You don't have the right to interrogate women about this particular. 

You therefore should never make the presumption that a woman is specifically responsible for her pregnancy. 
Topic's author
#58
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
No woman should be held responsible for getting pregnant if they were raped.

read my lips......

I already made the exception that you are pointing out

here it is

look it up 

The bio father and bio mother are equally  responsible and NO ONE ELSE! ( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g.  rape )).

and again

( assuming here the absence of some abnormal circumstance (( e. g.  rape )).

and again 

You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand.

#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@prefix
You are proposing that we treat a woman differently if they were Raped versus if they had consensual sex. This seems reasonable on the surface but really it is not and here is why. 

It is none of your business what has happened to her vagina. You should not ask women if tbey have been raped or force them to prove that they were Raped and so it is most logical to treat all women with equal consideration and compassion. Even those who were not in fact raped.
Topic's author
#60
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 339
1
3
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
1
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Look

the question at hand is "WHO PAYS?"

Your comments are both tangential and off topic.

We already treat rape victims differently anyway, so what is the value of your last comment?