I just read this article here, and it is not the first time that the government has forced a parent, usually a father, to pay child support for a child whom they had with a person but are not raising themselves. I believe that the government should not have the authority to force a parent to do anything for their child; that is a private affair between the parents of the child, and the government should not be able to interfere, at all. If one parent does not wish to support the child, that is too bad for the child and the other parent, in my mind.
Similarly, I believe that the government should not have the authority to take children away from parents with whose parenting practices they disagree; again, that is a private affair that is not the business of any outsiders. What right does the government have to judge the parenting practices of a person, and deem them "right" or "wrong?" Different people have different methods of being parents.
I believe that, until a child is a certain age (anywhere from sixteen to eighteen), their parents are the supreme authority figures in their lives, and no one, not even the government, should be allowed to undermine that authority, especially since the concept of family units long predates the concept of governments.
What does everyone else have to say about this? Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere in private family affairs? Why or why not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Similarly, I believe that the government should not have the authority to take children away from parents with whose parenting practices they disagree; again, that is a private affair that is not the business of any outsiders. What right does the government have to judge the parenting practices of a person, and deem them "right" or "wrong?" Different people have different methods of being parents.
Yeah, indeed. Just because I have those bastards chained up in the basement, making small trinkets I can sell, that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. It's my own parenting method, and I own them anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Yeah, indeed. Just because I have those bastards chained up in the basement, making small trinkets I can sell, that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. It's my own parenting method, and I own them anyway.
Is that sarcasm, I hope? I would find that to be very disturbing, if you are being serious about that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Yeah, indeed. Just because I have those bastards chained up in the basement, making small trinkets I can sell, that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. It's my own parenting method, and I own them anyway.
Is that sarcasm, I hope? I would find that to be very disturbing, if you are being serious about that.
That is indeed sarcasm.
There are such things as inalienable human rights. If parents do not provide these to their child for whatever reason, the government should interfere, since not interfering is equivalent to denying these children those rights.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
There are such things as inalienable human rights. If parents do not provide these to their child for whatever reason, the government should interfere, since not interfering is equivalent to denying these children those rights.
Yes, I agree with that, but I wish to be certain that no one abuses that system; that children do not lie about being abused when they actually are not simply to spite their parents.
What about my second question? Do you believe that the government should have the authority to force a parent to pay child support even if that parent has no desire to have any association with their child?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I just read this article here, and it is not the first time that the government has forced a parent, usually a father, to pay child support for a child whom they had with a person but are not raising themselves. I believe that the government should not have the authority to force a parent to do anything for their child; that is a private affair between the parents of the child, and the government should not be able to interfere, at all. If one parent does not wish to support the child, that is too bad for the child and the other parent, in my mind.
Similarly, I believe that the government should not have the authority to take children away from parents with whose parenting practices they disagree; again, that is a private affair that is not the business of any outsiders. What right does the government have to judge the parenting practices of a person, and deem them "right" or "wrong?" Different people have different methods of being parents.
I believe that, until a child is a certain age (anywhere from sixteen to eighteen), their parents are the supreme authority figures in their lives, and no one, not even the government, should be allowed to undermine that authority, especially since the concept of family units long predates the concept of governments.
What does everyone else have to say about this? Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere in private family affairs? Why or why not?
Wow... that's taking it to an extreme.
In general I dislike government interference; however, there are certainly limits (and definitely should be) on what a parent is allowed to do while raising their child. Chaining the child up in the basement for example is a point where the government needs to interfere with shady parenting. The parent child relationship is a bit harder for the government to deal with than an adult relationship since for many years the child has no concept of their own rights and that what their parent is doing could be wrong.
Also on your child support idea... while I think we are too strict in some areas of child support a parent being able to walk away at any time and absolve themselves of financial responsibility is just plain irresponsible. I could see allowing a parent a one time chance to get out of it before the child is born (or when they find out they have a child for those weird cases) but to be in a child's life for some number of years and then just decide "eh, never mind I don't like you" and allowing that parent to end their financial responsibilities seems a bit crazy.
There are such things as inalienable human rights. If parents do not provide these to their child for whatever reason, the government should interfere, since not interfering is equivalent to denying these children those rights.
Yes, I agree with that, but I wish to be certain that no one abuses that system; that children do not lie about being abused when they actually are not simply to spite their parents.
I agree with that, so, to make sure that people do not lie about being raped simply to spite other people, we shouldn't worry about rape.
What about my second question? Do you believe that the government should have the authority to force a parent to pay child support even if that parent has no desire to have any association with their child?
I do. Not getting pregnant is ridiculously easy and the onus is on both parties involved to make sure it doesn't happen. If it does happen, both also need to take responsibility.
Let's again take an extreme example. Some rich guy has a child with someone on wellfare who gets by only just on her own. Should we allow mother and child to grow up in horrible circumstances because that guy cannot miss a bit of money?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Let's again take an extreme example. Some rich guy has a child with someone on wellfare who gets by only just on her own. Should we allow mother and child to grow up in horrible circumstances because that guy cannot miss a bit of money?
Of course I do not believe that the mother and child should suffer, but what if neither parent has a great amount of money to spare? Is that situation any different?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Child support is certainly a good idea in the abstract. I think our implementation of it needs to be rethought, though. The way the system works today really stems from a very traditional man-as-breadwinner model of the family. The fortunes of mother and child shouldn't depend on the income level of a person who's totally out of their life. "If you're going to get knocked up, make sure it's with a millionaire" is a pretty weird message for the law to send. Same deal as with alimony, really: the idea seems to be to "keep her in the manner to which she has become accustomed", and is really archaic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There are such things as inalienable human rights. If parents do not provide these to their child for whatever reason, the government should interfere, since not interfering is equivalent to denying these children those rights.
Yes, I agree with that, but I wish to be certain that no one abuses that system; that children do not lie about being abused when they actually are not simply to spite their parents.
What about my second question? Do you believe that the government should have the authority to force a parent to pay child support even if that parent has no desire to have any association with their child?
I never said it should be done in every case, but you make a positive claim (it should not be within the governments power), which I am disproving.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Wow your pretty extreme sided here. No a parent is not the ultimate authority figure, and no the government has EVERY right to stop you from doing something illegal with your child. Society needs children to grow up with a minimum bar set so they can be productive members of society. As for child payments yes because if you don't the child suffers which in turn will push them towards being a less productive member of society, more likely to go in to crime, AND we as tax payers will likely have to pay to deal with that. The cash is more to make sure we don't have to worry about it. I shouldn't have to bear the weight of YOUR mistake. raising your child poorly or not supporting your child properly will result in a less effective adult which will weigh down society at large as it happens more and more. That is not worth my while so you have to make sure you take care of your own crap.
You seemed shocked by the sarcastic comments of Rodyle but you basically make the argument that such behavior by the parent must be accepted by the government. Thats bull****. The standards for terminating parental rights in this country are very high. A parent must have their rights terminated. The legal standard to do this is the second highest in the legal world (the highest being beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases). Typically absent some egregious situation the parents must be provided with resources to fix their problems and only after multiple failures are children taken. I don't think you realize how many meth heads there are out there who barely feed their kids, don't wash them, don't get them necessary medication and in certain cases abuse them both physically and sexually for their own pleasure. This ***** happens. More than most people want to admit. I think the state is too slow to intervene. There are numerous cases where, due to a parent getting their 4th chance to change, a child is beaten to death. You have a fundamental constitutional right in this nation to raise your child and have familial privacy. The government only steps in when things get bad. Real bad.
As to child support. The intent is to not make a kid a "ward of the state". Make sure they have just enough to not end up on government assistance. How much a parent pays is based on need and entirely contingent on how much the non-custodial parent makes. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it the least bad alternative? Yes.
What about my second question? Do you believe that the government should have the authority to force a parent to pay child support even if that parent has no desire to have any association with their child?
I have a feeling this was the question you were really trying to ask, and decided to bury the lead because you knew it was a controversial subject.
The correct answer, of course, is "yes," even if only to provide for children in a general sense.
I think a general child welfare system, wherein the state pays for the care of all children in its borders, is probably the best system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
If we lived in a utopia I would agree. Most people don't have the pleasure of trying to get necessary money from the gov on a regular basis. Its not easy. A program where the gov't would pay for all child expenses is unrealistic. Also, why would/should the gov pay for kids whose parents are wealthy?
I believe that the government should not have the authority to force a parent to do anything for their child; that is a private affair between the parents of the child, and the government should not be able to interfere, at all. If one parent does not wish to support the child, that is too bad for the child and the other parent, in my mind.
So... if one parent leaves, then presumably the other can as well.
What happens to the child then?
Don't say "government takes care", because you already made it clear that government shout not be able to interfere with their arrangements, reinforced with the rest of your post:
Similarly, I believe that the government should not have the authority to take children away from parents with whose parenting practices they disagree; again, that is a private affair that is not the business of any outsiders. What right does the government have to judge the parenting practices of a person, and deem them "right" or "wrong?" Different people have different methods of being parents.
I believe that, until a child is a certain age (anywhere from sixteen to eighteen), their parents are the supreme authority figures in their lives, and no one, not even the government, should be allowed to undermine that authority, especially since the concept of family units long predates the concept of governments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Well, I definitely don't believe that a boy who was raped should be held responsible for paying back child support for years in which he was still a minor. That's a travesty.
"True, you were 15 and had just been raped last year, but it's still your responsibility as a man!" What the...?
Well, I definitely don't believe that a boy who was raped should be held responsible for paying back child support for years in which he was still a minor. That's a travesty.
"True, you were 15 and had just been raped last year, but it's still your responsibility as a man!" What the...?
The cited case is a prime example of what happens when you mechanically apply laws without regard to the specific circumstances and intent behind the laws. On the one hand, too much reliance on intent behind the laws results in a wishy washy situation where you can never predict how the application of the law will turn out. On the other hand, too much reliance on bright line rules results in weird and unthinkable applications (like charging a rape victim back child support).
I'm still inclined to lean towards bright line rules, though, particularly because this specific case can (and should) be addressed even with bright line rules -- specifically, that a victim of rape cannot then be held liable for child support.
On the broader issue of child support -- it's purpose is to benefit the child, not the adult. The argument that a man should be able to disclaim child support before the birth of the child is not without merit, assuming you also agree that abortion is a justifiable practice, since that is effectively what the mother is doing in that case albeit significantly more permanently.
The real "problem" with child support is one of institutional sexism, and the fact that it's almost universally considered deadbeat dads, and is significantly more difficult for a single father to get child support than a single mother.
Wow, OP went from a sympathetic case which simply demonstrates that we shouldn't all be law-bots (especially since, in order to apply for child support, she had to, you know, confess to a sex-related felony, which sorta means she maybe shouldn't be allowed around children) to going against any and all cases, and, get this, using the father in this case as an icon for all manner of cases without his consent. Using him without his consent. I'm sure someone has done that before...
Clue: This guy isn't every guy who's ever been compelled to pay child support. Maybe there should be an exception for cases like this, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (And if you make a habit of throwing your baby out with the bathwater, then the government should take your kids away from you.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Wow, OP went from a sympathetic case which simply demonstrates that we shouldn't all be law-bots (especially since, in order to apply for child support, she had to, you know, confess to a sex-related felony, which sorta means she maybe shouldn't be allowed around children) to going against any and all cases, and, get this, using the father in this case as an icon for all manner of cases without his consent. Using him without his consent. I'm sure someone has done that before...
Technically she didn't apply for child support. She applied for welfare, and the state said "wait a minute, have you been getting child support? No, well we'll go ahead and get money from the dad to pay for your welfare".
While I agree that deadbeat Father's (and the rarer deadbeat mothers) should be required to pay child support, it's a rough sell to me that someone who had no awareness that they even had a child should be required to pay *back* child support for the time they were't supporting the child they didn't even know they had.
So then, Blatch, would you say that a victim of rape who has a child as a byproduct of that rape would also have the right to terminate their parental rights?
So yeah. I think it's safe to say that's one scenario in which the government absolutely should intervene and take a child away from her parents. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but I know there's plenty of cases that are obviously past the line, more than enough to justify things like abuse laws.
What does everyone else have to say about this? Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere in private family affairs? Why or why not?
Should the government have the right to interfere with private family affairs? Yes.
---You can't abuse your children. You can't sell kids into slavery. You can't deny them an education or teach them klingon only and abandon them.
---You cannot beat your wife, your grandmother, your dog.
---You cannot burn them with cigarettes, and or leave them in a locked car in the middle of the summer.
---You and your family cannot decide to run a dynamite factory out of your apartment in new york city.
Your rights end where another person's rights begin. Government should have the right to enforce that. Besides it's a moot point. They already do.
Should the government do so without good reason. No.
But we live in a democratic society. If you think Government has it wrong you are free to challenge laws, vote out your congressman, push for referenda and social policy.
Assuming laws are local or state based, you have the power to move away to another jurisdiction where you like the laws better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Similarly, I believe that the government should not have the authority to take children away from parents with whose parenting practices they disagree; again, that is a private affair that is not the business of any outsiders. What right does the government have to judge the parenting practices of a person, and deem them "right" or "wrong?" Different people have different methods of being parents.
I believe that, until a child is a certain age (anywhere from sixteen to eighteen), their parents are the supreme authority figures in their lives, and no one, not even the government, should be allowed to undermine that authority, especially since the concept of family units long predates the concept of governments.
What does everyone else have to say about this? Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere in private family affairs? Why or why not?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Yeah, indeed. Just because I have those bastards chained up in the basement, making small trinkets I can sell, that doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. It's my own parenting method, and I own them anyway.
Is that sarcasm, I hope? I would find that to be very disturbing, if you are being serious about that.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
That is indeed sarcasm.
There are such things as inalienable human rights. If parents do not provide these to their child for whatever reason, the government should interfere, since not interfering is equivalent to denying these children those rights.
Yes, I agree with that, but I wish to be certain that no one abuses that system; that children do not lie about being abused when they actually are not simply to spite their parents.
What about my second question? Do you believe that the government should have the authority to force a parent to pay child support even if that parent has no desire to have any association with their child?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Wow... that's taking it to an extreme.
In general I dislike government interference; however, there are certainly limits (and definitely should be) on what a parent is allowed to do while raising their child. Chaining the child up in the basement for example is a point where the government needs to interfere with shady parenting. The parent child relationship is a bit harder for the government to deal with than an adult relationship since for many years the child has no concept of their own rights and that what their parent is doing could be wrong.
Also on your child support idea... while I think we are too strict in some areas of child support a parent being able to walk away at any time and absolve themselves of financial responsibility is just plain irresponsible. I could see allowing a parent a one time chance to get out of it before the child is born (or when they find out they have a child for those weird cases) but to be in a child's life for some number of years and then just decide "eh, never mind I don't like you" and allowing that parent to end their financial responsibilities seems a bit crazy.
I agree with that, so, to make sure that people do not lie about being raped simply to spite other people, we shouldn't worry about rape.
I do. Not getting pregnant is ridiculously easy and the onus is on both parties involved to make sure it doesn't happen. If it does happen, both also need to take responsibility.
Let's again take an extreme example. Some rich guy has a child with someone on wellfare who gets by only just on her own. Should we allow mother and child to grow up in horrible circumstances because that guy cannot miss a bit of money?
Of course I do not believe that the mother and child should suffer, but what if neither parent has a great amount of money to spare? Is that situation any different?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I never said it should be done in every case, but you make a positive claim (it should not be within the governments power), which I am disproving.
You seemed shocked by the sarcastic comments of Rodyle but you basically make the argument that such behavior by the parent must be accepted by the government. Thats bull****. The standards for terminating parental rights in this country are very high. A parent must have their rights terminated. The legal standard to do this is the second highest in the legal world (the highest being beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases). Typically absent some egregious situation the parents must be provided with resources to fix their problems and only after multiple failures are children taken. I don't think you realize how many meth heads there are out there who barely feed their kids, don't wash them, don't get them necessary medication and in certain cases abuse them both physically and sexually for their own pleasure. This ***** happens. More than most people want to admit. I think the state is too slow to intervene. There are numerous cases where, due to a parent getting their 4th chance to change, a child is beaten to death. You have a fundamental constitutional right in this nation to raise your child and have familial privacy. The government only steps in when things get bad. Real bad.
As to child support. The intent is to not make a kid a "ward of the state". Make sure they have just enough to not end up on government assistance. How much a parent pays is based on need and entirely contingent on how much the non-custodial parent makes. Is it a perfect system? No. Is it the least bad alternative? Yes.
I have a feeling this was the question you were really trying to ask, and decided to bury the lead because you knew it was a controversial subject.
The correct answer, of course, is "yes," even if only to provide for children in a general sense.
I think a general child welfare system, wherein the state pays for the care of all children in its borders, is probably the best system.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
So... if one parent leaves, then presumably the other can as well.
What happens to the child then?
Don't say "government takes care", because you already made it clear that government shout not be able to interfere with their arrangements, reinforced with the rest of your post:
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
"True, you were 15 and had just been raped last year, but it's still your responsibility as a man!" What the...?
The cited case is a prime example of what happens when you mechanically apply laws without regard to the specific circumstances and intent behind the laws. On the one hand, too much reliance on intent behind the laws results in a wishy washy situation where you can never predict how the application of the law will turn out. On the other hand, too much reliance on bright line rules results in weird and unthinkable applications (like charging a rape victim back child support).
I'm still inclined to lean towards bright line rules, though, particularly because this specific case can (and should) be addressed even with bright line rules -- specifically, that a victim of rape cannot then be held liable for child support.
On the broader issue of child support -- it's purpose is to benefit the child, not the adult. The argument that a man should be able to disclaim child support before the birth of the child is not without merit, assuming you also agree that abortion is a justifiable practice, since that is effectively what the mother is doing in that case albeit significantly more permanently.
The real "problem" with child support is one of institutional sexism, and the fact that it's almost universally considered deadbeat dads, and is significantly more difficult for a single father to get child support than a single mother.
Clue: This guy isn't every guy who's ever been compelled to pay child support. Maybe there should be an exception for cases like this, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (And if you make a habit of throwing your baby out with the bathwater, then the government should take your kids away from you.)
On phasing:
Technically she didn't apply for child support. She applied for welfare, and the state said "wait a minute, have you been getting child support? No, well we'll go ahead and get money from the dad to pay for your welfare".
While I agree that deadbeat Father's (and the rarer deadbeat mothers) should be required to pay child support, it's a rough sell to me that someone who had no awareness that they even had a child should be required to pay *back* child support for the time they were't supporting the child they didn't even know they had.
I'm not sure I follow?
So yeah. I think it's safe to say that's one scenario in which the government absolutely should intervene and take a child away from her parents. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but I know there's plenty of cases that are obviously past the line, more than enough to justify things like abuse laws.
Should the government have the right to interfere with private family affairs? Yes.
---You can't abuse your children. You can't sell kids into slavery. You can't deny them an education or teach them klingon only and abandon them.
---You cannot beat your wife, your grandmother, your dog.
---You cannot burn them with cigarettes, and or leave them in a locked car in the middle of the summer.
---You and your family cannot decide to run a dynamite factory out of your apartment in new york city.
Your rights end where another person's rights begin. Government should have the right to enforce that. Besides it's a moot point. They already do.
Should the government do so without good reason. No.
But we live in a democratic society. If you think Government has it wrong you are free to challenge laws, vote out your congressman, push for referenda and social policy.
Assuming laws are local or state based, you have the power to move away to another jurisdiction where you like the laws better.