• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12
green1706


stranger
Location: Romania

Total posts: 3
Posted:Children born for what? Violence and torture against children is a fact to which we are witnesses, even if we do not want. I have seen children beaten, made to beg, crippled or abandoned by parents. If you want to be a parent but you do not have security for the future of your child, then I think you should to think twice before you give life to an innocent beings. Child care should be a priority. What you think about this? What should be done to prevent negligence and carelessness of the kids?

frown


Love my kids

Delete Topic

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction

Total posts: 13215
Posted:In which case it's the ethics of the mother where the issue lies, and not the concept of child support in itself.

You're only talking about situations where the mother has the child despite all signs against it (making a bad decision) and ignoring what I mentioned about how even despite a mutual agreement to keep the child, separations and therefore child support issues can arise. That is not the mother bringing a child into the world "knowing she is not ready, [and] cannot support the child" or "aren't mature or humane enough to do the right thing." It's the mother and father agreeing to bring the child into the world but the circumstances of that agreement changing for whatever reason.

You can't throw a blanket over all child support situations.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

EpitomeOfNovice
GOLD Member since Sep 2009

EpitomeOfNovice

Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
Location: Dover, Delaware USA

Total posts: 787
Posted:You can throw a blanket over them because they are all treated the same by the federal government and are worked out through the court and monitored by the state with harsh consequences. Child support as a governmental institution that is guaranteed by the courts and is strictly enforced with harsh penalties is wrong. If the father is willing and finds a fair negotiation with the mother that is fine and he is doing the right thing, but the government tracking down anyone who's late on a payment throwing "dead beat dad" legislations at them making the situation the same regardless if the father is active in the child's life and has fallen on hard times or if the father wants nothing to do with the child and is forced to pay although he has waived his parental rights.

As long a child support is a governmental insituation it will be under a blanket by default. The only people who think it's a good thing are on the receiving end because pairs who separate who truly share split custody wouldn't need a court order to ensure equal care to the child.

You have never stated why it is so great and I don't want to assume you collect it (nobody likes to bite the hand that feeds them), so please enlighten as to why this system that allows the government to oppress men, put them in a database, and ruin their lives permanently with a criminal record is a good system? Also, do you think the money goes completely too the child in most cases (times are tough and if a woman is broke and desperate that money could be tempting to apply to other things) and do you think it's right to knowing bring a child into a poverty stricken situation (which I do not think is right).

BTW The situations I described are the most common ones, your divorce related situation doesn't happen as much (unless you count shotgun weddings and I'm not counting those) at the early ages where child care is the most demanding and expensive. If all child support situations aren't blanket there should not be government involvement period. I have no problem with child support, I do have a problem with it involved in the judicial system and having legislation made about it. I also have a problem with marriage and other social affairs being governmental matters because it infringes on personal liberty and wastes tax payer's money as well.

EDITED_BY: EpitomeOfNovice (1256921224)


~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction

Total posts: 13215
Posted:Originally Posted By: EpitomeOfNoviceYou can throw a blanket over them because they are all treated the same by the federal government and are worked out through the court and monitored by the state with harsh consequences.
So because the government does the wrong thing, then socially we should be doing the same thing? Condemning the mothers who have been doing the right thing just because there are mothers who do the wrong thing? I will never do that, but do it to your heart's content.


Quote:If the father is willing and finds a fair negotiation with the mother that is fine and he is doing the right thing,
exactly. IF.

Quote:has fallen on hard times
Which is why it's means tested.

Quote:The only people who think it's a good thing are on the receiving end because pairs who separate who truly share split custody wouldn't need a court order to ensure equal care to the child.
Again, there's a blanket assumption.
And you keep implying that ALL separations are mutual and good and happy and friendly. Frequently they are NOT. Just because a couple mutually agreed to keep a child does not mean that they had a mutual breakup with happy happy custody agreements.

Quote:You have never stated why it is so great
I never said that it's "so great" simply that it's not as horrible as you're making it out to be. And if you've been reading what I've been saying you will see that I have stated why I agree with the concept.

Quote: so please enlighten as to why this system that allows the government to oppress men, put them in a database, and ruin their lives permanently with a criminal record is a good system?
Did I say the system was good? No. I said that the concept is good.

Quote:Also, do you think the money goes completely too the child in most cases
I know for a fact that it doesn't always. But again, that's a case of the mother doing the wrong thing and not the notion of child support in itself.

Quote:and do you think it's right to knowing bring a child into a poverty stricken situation
Can. Of. Worms. Because not like third world people have a choice.
But I won't throw a blanket over that statement and will acknowledge that you're talking about first world countries. You clearly have NOT been reading my posts because I have been trying to tell you that many cases of child support arise from a mutual agreement to keep a child because a couple felt that they COULD financially support it as a couple and it's only when for unforseen circumstances they break up that it's then required. That is NOT a case of knowingly bringing a child into poverty.

Quote:BTW The situations I described are the most common ones,
References, please.

Quote:I have no problem with child support,
So why have you been arguing against me?

Quote:I do have a problem with it involved in the judicial system and having legislation made about it.
Which, as I have been stating, is not the concept of child support. It's the government's mismanagement of the situation.

You need to be able to separate a few things:
Child support as a concept.
The government and the implementation of it.
A mother (or father) abusing the system.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction

Total posts: 13215
Posted:Look, that's all I have to say on the subject. I'm not willing to generalise all cases into one or blame the people who do the right thing for the wrongs of other people (mothers and fathers). If you have an issue with the government and its implementation then by all means, take issue with it. I'm not 100% happy with how the government sorts it out either (along with many other things the government does) but I have the ability to separate the facets of the issue in my mind and not blame the victims of a flawed system (mother, father and child).

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

EpitomeOfNovice
GOLD Member since Sep 2009

EpitomeOfNovice

Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
Location: Dover, Delaware USA

Total posts: 787
Posted:You're the one who brought it up and it sounds like a case of cognitive dissonance to me because you don't want to be related to the stigma, but you did admittedly take your ex to court and sue him for it in a "not so happy break up". I'm not you, but I have a feeling that a divorce could make someone vengeful enough to battle over a child or try to extort each other to get your last digs in.

I've never blamed the people who use this system in the way you are speaking of so your defensive nature seems as though it's stemmed from guilt. Depending on how long you were married it was probably too soon to know the connection was strong enough to bring a child into the world and have it survive. You wanted to jump in and defend yourself while I'm trying to talk about the importance of sexual health, contraception, and personal accountability so don't paint me out as a villian for having an opinion on making the world a better place for children because you feel defensive. I never attacked you, don't know you personally, or anything so I'm not going to judge and when I have an issue with a blanket term, concept, or a governmental institution that is my right.

You wanted to take the conversation here and get external validation or whatever and I don't lie to people just to make them feel good, so I'm sorry (it's against my morals), I stand where I stand and if you take offense to something that shouldn't be offensive that does sadden me. When people jump into a debate with bias and make it egocentric that's bound to happen, I try to not go to such a place with my own words and tread very lightly on those who do go there.

I think you're misguided and refuse to admit that supporting a system and a concept because it's "working" for you (which I have no proof of so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt even though you admitted to an ugly divorce and if you need help you're not wealthy enough to do it alone) helps justify it's abuse, inequality, and immorality in those who choose to use it that way because it's the same system and you're the "shining" example of the model divorced mother amoungst those less scrupulous.


~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction

Total posts: 13215
Posted:laugh3

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

EpitomeOfNovice
GOLD Member since Sep 2009

EpitomeOfNovice

Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
Location: Dover, Delaware USA

Total posts: 787
Posted:Originally Posted By: Rouge Dragonlaugh3

Yeah, not much else to say now is there? I'm shocked you even bothered being (insert condescending or sarcastic here, whatever that display was) considering your mind is made up and you don't care about equal rights for all sexes and the advancement for humanity to get from such terrible cards to play like "child support" and push toward having character like responsible, mature, productive members of society. *shrugs* Anytime over compensation is a part of trying to mend inequalities history has proved the problem becomes greater with the backlash like with affirmative action, reparations, alimony, etc all of which has caused catastrophic chain reactions to go well past those directly affected. Why? Because it's the wrong way to do things.

If you were living in the USA and didn't acknowledge the chain reactions from such flawed systems like child support and how the costs are passed to everyone through taxation, strain on the local government level and on up, creating victimless crimes... I would think you were naive, delusional, or just plain dismissive. It's a serious issue in many ways and as a parent I would like to think you had a more level head on your shoulders.

It's a bad concept because it's an unnecessary concept, plain and simple. When an unnecessary concept is mandated and considered an actual "right" that cannot be questioned you have a terrible mess for everyone and not just the directly involved parties. You say it's "means" oriented? How is that fair when a man barely has the means to provide for himself and part of those are taken from him or he is incarcerated? How does he pay his rent and take care of himself? There are welfare systems in place to help with essentials like food and healthcare when people with children are in need plus charitable organizations on the local level in the case of emergencies. All a man gets is a harder time making his own security fund incase something should happen to him, how is that fair when the government is already on your side?

Both parents should be involved regularly and by their own free will, sharing custody, emotional and financial responsibilities when they arise, and put aside their differences to work together for the sake of the child. Those who can not do that are going to be negative energy in the child's presence and demanding an annuity from someone who wouldn't jump in and take care of what the child needs is generating bad karma/energy. That is why child support in it's conceptual form is wrong, it should be a no brainer. Plus if one parent who has sole custody of a child, they have the ability to give that child up for adoption or into foster care if they can't/won't/don't want to do it anymore and can wash their hands of it. So how is it equal or right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want regardless of situation when the guardian can extinguish that right at anytime?

It's not, nuff said. Anyone else have ideas about this one?

EDITED_BY: EpitomeOfNovice (1257062348)


~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear

Total posts: 4693
Posted:well, i'd like to start off by saying your assumptions on rouge are misguided and i suspect she is laughing because your accusations of taking an ex to court, divorce and single mother are absurd and completely incorrect, i would appreciate a reference as to why you believe this to be because i havent seen where she made any such claims. perhaps you are reading inbetween the lines a bit too much? basically your post #898511 - 11/01/09 05:44 AM is completely speculative talk which quite frankly isnt what i'd call "tread very lightly on those who do go there".

and i guess for fear of stating the obvious its worth noting that from my view you are talking about your USA system while rouge was talking generally about the concept. im not sure about in the USA but by "means tested" rouge is saying in australia the amount of money required in support payments is scaled to the (usually) mans taxable income, so no he is not going to "barely has the means to provide for himself and part of those are taken from him". he is made to pay what he can afford to support his child he otherwise chooses to neglect.

"Both parents should be involved regularly and by their own free will, sharing custody, emotional and financial responsibilities when they arise, and put aside their differences to work together for the sake of the child."
i totally agree, but unfortunately how often does that not happen? frequently. and who is the victim who will suffer from bitter parents wanting nothing to do with eachother? the child. so if one parent chooses to not attend to the custody and emotional responsibilities they are not forced to, but they are still expected to financially as that has a simple practical benefit.

i dont understand why you say it is unnecessary, expecting one parent to carry the entire financial burden of raising a child as a result of BOTH their actions sounds incredibly contradictory to "equal rights for all sexes" which you accuse rouge of not caring about.

Originally Posted By: rougeseparate a few things:
Child support as a concept.
The government and the implementation of it.
A mother (or father) abusing the system.

i think they are important points to distinguish, kind of like socialist theory, communism, and communism becoming dictatorship.

back onto an earlier point, with increased promotion of contraception and planning, hopefully for the most part the child support concept can become more redundant (which i suspect is why you say its unnecessary) smile


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

EpitomeOfNovice
GOLD Member since Sep 2009

EpitomeOfNovice

Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
Location: Dover, Delaware USA

Total posts: 787
Posted:(Warning: Long post, but carries much insight, I'll title each paragraph for simplicity and ability to skip through...)

(RESPONSE TO MY TONE AND ASSUMPTIONS I MADE:)
Oh wow, don't take me that seriously! I type how I talk and I suppose without the help of the tone of my voice things sound colder than they are. If someone keeps pushing on something and trying to get me to concede to an ideology I'm against (kinda how I deal with people who try to convert me to their religion but less intensely), I tend to think they have personal motivation and the progression of her posts pointed to "divorced mother who thinks they're one of the good examples". If that's not the case I'm honestly sorry, take the context as hypothetical. No, for me that is treading very lightly in being as politically correct as possible. I tell my honest opinion and don't hold back when it pertains to a particular topic that has no absolute truth or personal attachment. Her rebuttals seemed very emotionally charged and limited in broadness of the whole picture, which is where I made an assumption and I wanted to give her more credit than just being ignorant.

(QUESTION ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF "MEANS BASED")
So anyways since you're telling me it's "means based" if a man has under a certain income where you live he cannot be sued for it at all? If that is the case the USA could stand to learn a few things (it's treated the same way as Alimony here and in the end it's how good can your lawyer talk and what is the judge's mood). Really, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, I don't know why people continue this practice.

(MY EXPLANATION OF HOW CHILD SUPPORT IS GAINED UNJUSTLY IN THE USA AND DOES MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD FOR A CHILD)
From the child's end of this stuff which I did live, this stuff is very disturbing when you're old enough to know what's going on and why a parent is angry who is pretty absent as well. You're actually disgusted at being a pawn and take the blame on yourself for the ugly display of adults (I felt that way from 5-10 years old then gained the sense of who the problem people were considering the bickering was hardly over any money to begin with). People here fight for full custody just to get child support, those with shared custody no one pays even though the child is actively living at both parents home separately on a schedule. It's another issue that makes me against child support because people fight in court to get full custody to take away parental rights from one parent and then demand payment from the person they extinguished parental rights from in a court battle because they're bitter. *shrugs* I don't think it'll ever be fair and to a child, peace of mind is more valuable than money they will never really see manifest but hear about very often. I've disowned my family as an adult and only in the past few years have I been able to live worth living because of all their damage, I'm vigilant against never repeating this to my children because of my own suffering and I know many others who it's made adulthood several times more difficult as well.

(BACK TO THE PRESENT BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING LEFT ON THAT AND THINK ANYTHING MORE IS A WASTE OF EFFORT)
Originally Posted By: Mr Majestikback onto an earlier point, with increased promotion of contraception and planning, hopefully for the most part the child support concept can become more redundant (which i suspect is why you say its unnecessary) smile

Yes, yes, yes. I'm 100% certain that with a more responsible, accountable, educated, and mindful populous that could be the case. It takes a lot of individual efforts to make a big change, I hope more people at some point realize the power they have when making such choices because all together they would eradicate the need for many faulty, flawed systems in place now while bettering their lives in the process. yes



EDITED_BY: EpitomeOfNovice (1257101120)


~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomas I said, I'm not an exert in the subject...

Amongst the discomforts it got mentioned:

increase of weight, depressions, bloodflow in between the cycle, disturbances in the cycle, headache up to development of migrane, diminished sexual desire...

Using a combined estrogen/progestin preparation there is no increase of weight and break-through bleeding is very rare.

more significant risks include:
Quote:
increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer,

There is no increased risk of developing breast cancer over the risk increase from not getting pregnant. In other words, pregnancy is protective against breast cancer, which explains the finding that women who have used birth control are more likely to develop breast cancer.

Birth control is protective against ovarian and endometrial cancer.

Quote:
heart attack and thrombosis, only a significant risk factor in women who smoke or women over the age of 40.

Quote:increase of liver damage and infections of the ovarian tract,

Disproven. Especially the infections bit. Actually it is protective against infections by thickening the cervical mucus and making it more difficult for bacteria to penetrate to the uterus.

Quote:miscarriage in pregnancies received directly after the pill has not been taken

Although hormonal contraceptives can prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo, they do not cause a miscarriage of an already implanted fetus.

Quote:the period in which a woman can receive is quite narrow. not sure about the "one day theory" - may be true (I'm no expert). to my knowledge the window is a couple of days as sperm can survive and wait. The "morning-after" or "PLAN B" pill should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. The sooner the better.

Quote:but for the matter of the pill curing PMS... *that* I wouldn't subscribe to - at least it's not been very successful on my partners.
It does work for some women, but it's usually better at preventing severe menstrual cramping and bleeding. Antidepressants are better at preventing PMS.

Quote:if a woman takes the pill without having a partnership (to be "ready", "just in case") psychological problems such as depression might increase significantly...

I don't know where this came from, but I am not aware of any actual evidence that the pill increases mood disorders over placebo.

Yes, there are women who will tell me that the pill made them gain 100 pounds, get depressed, develop fibromyalgia, and that it made her periods worse forever, even though she hasn't taken it in 5 years. That doesn't mean that the pill is actually responsible.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

EpitomeOfNovice
GOLD Member since Sep 2009

EpitomeOfNovice

Putting the "FUN" in fundamental since 1981
Location: Dover, Delaware USA

Total posts: 787
Posted:Thanks for clearing all of that up, it's consistent with every thing I've been told by doctors. I wonder where many of these misconceptions came from to begin with. Probably dated studies maybe?

~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear

Total posts: 4693
Posted:dated studies, or people with ulterior motives, or who are just silly, misinterpreting studies for their own purposes. happens more than it should.

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:see we can dig out various studies that prove or disprove each side of the argument (whose result greatly depend on whether it got sponsored by the Vatican or Bayer-Schering) ... (and no pun but I met quite a professors who had only few clues what they were really talking about - quite a few recommendations have been issued unless proven otherwise. It is NOT as if every body is the same)...

Personally I'm not an expert (as I said before) only got my few years of experience and having been involved in countless (and often pointless) debates over birth control...

At the end of the day we all agreed that practicing same-sex-sex is the most efficient way apart from abstinence and auto-erotics - yet I couldn't finally wrap my arms around any of them.

back on topic:

unfortunately both sexes don't enjoy equal rights - depending on your cultural environment either wo- or men are "in the lead"... all I know is that it usually are the kids that DO have to suffer the consequences of a busted relationship/ marriage... (and often carry the burden, finally handing them on to their children)... it shouldn't be like that - but it (usually) is.

unfortunately society has too many resentments when it comes to the topic and is too caught up in (medieval) debates, criticism and lamenting over the symptoms - rather than tackling the causes.

Better education on sexuality, higher support for single parents and intensified funding for orphanages would a possible solution...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 12

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [child care] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Taking care that medical or technical infomation you post is correct. [76 replies]
2. Forums > Child Care [43 replies]
3. Forums > Child Labor [1 reply]
4. Forums > New Poll -Are you the eldest child in your family? [39 replies]
5. Forums > UK ID cards [60 replies]

     Show more..