Person or property?

tinknal · #41 01/21/11, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

why should you be able to? Only one parent receives the deduction. the custodial.

I'm not talking about the per child deduction, I'm talking about taxable income. Extremely unfair in my opinion. don't you think that a federal tax of several thousand dollars is unfair for someone only bringing home $15,000 after child support?

SquashNut · #42 01/21/11, 07:13 PM

We need to make it a law, that both people are resposible, the second they decide to have sex. Doesn't matter if they use protection or not. If a child is conceived it is the respocibility of both father and mother to care for that child.
You don't want a child keep your pants on.

Nevada · #43 01/21/11, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SquashNut

We need to make it a law, that both people are resposible, the second they decide to have sex. Doesn't matter if they use protection or not. If a child is conceived it is the respocibility of both father and mother to care for that child.
You don't want a child keep your pants on.

I think they have taken that one about as far as it can go. Clinton has already created laws that go far beyond what the constitution will allow. The only reason it hasn't been stricken-down is that the fathers involved are too broke to fight it.

Sonshine · #44 01/21/11, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megafatcat

Since Mr Obama embraced his black heritage I think it is safe to call him black, by US Census Bureau guidelines.

Actually, if a child has any african american in him he is considered african american. My DS is bi-racial, but on his birth certificate they have him listed as african american.

Sonshine · #45 01/21/11, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

Women are smart enough to decide what is best for them at that moment. Obama has been very clear on the subject. He states that a woman can decide for herself. Making abortion illegal isnt going to stop women from doing what they feel they need to do. Keeping it legal is our right.

With so many men jumping ship when babies come..i am shocked that anyone would even suggest that women then BE FORCED to carry a child.

Thats simply absurd. Having an abortion is considered an abomination, but thousands of men are abandoning their responsibilities to their children..and that doesnt raise eyebrows?

First of all, the woman has ways to prevent getting pregnant. Abortion is murder and I believe it should be treated as such. If the woman can not or will not take care of the child after it's born, there are plenty of childless people who would be more than happy to raise that child. And yes, many men abandon their responsibilities. A woman can take them to court, but even failing to get support that way, since when do modern women need a man to support herself and her child?

Sonshine · #46 01/21/11, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

you are right. why should women be told what option is the best for them? besides that, women have been doing it for centuries. there are many ways to induce a miscarriage. so what is the real issue? Not enough government control over women? I think women have enough brains to figure it out themselves without any outside interference. That is essentially "obamas" stance on abortion. For which he is absolutely correct.

it certainly isn't about the baby... not as much as the right resents those who are on the government dole .

Why isn't it about the baby? If a pregnant woman is murdered then the murderer can be tried and convicted for 2 murders. That tells me that the government acknowldeges that it IS a baby. As such, that baby should be given the same right to life as any other human being.

Sonshine · #47 01/21/11, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JanS

I wasn't referring to abortions due to rape, but to the fact that men do have choices about whether or not to become fathers. When they choose to have sex and when they choose whether or not to use birth control. Unless a man was raped, he made a choice.

Again with the double standard? Women can choose whether or not to use birth control. IF she chooses not to, then she can expect to get pregnant. So, where is the baby's right to choose life?

Sonshine · #48 01/21/11, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverFlame819

I personally think that if a consenting man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant, it was BOTH of their job to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. If the man doesn't want the child but the woman chooses to keep it, he shouldn't have to pay child support. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, I think that should also be taken into consideration and she should seriously be made to consider the feelings of the man, and carry the child to term for him... And then hand it off and wipe her hands clean at the birth.

I completely disagree with a woman insisting on carrying the child to term and raising it when the man has stated he wants nothing to do with the child, and then insisting he pay child support. That is just ridiculous to me.

And if we outlaw abortion, women will just go back to stabbing themselves with hangers to get medical treatment (= abortion to save her life and stop the bleeding). I also find it ridiculous to argue this point when we have a sky-high number of kids in the foster system who aren't getting homes at all, and being kicked from the system to the street on their 18th birthdays. Who exactly is going to take care of all these kids?

This is like saying we should stop spaying our dogs because it's cruel to take away their reproductive freedom.

Get a grip, extremist people.

There are many people who would LOVE to take these kids in and raise them. The problem is, the system is so messed up that they make it almost impossible to adopt them. They keep sending the kids back to mothers who are unfit to be mothers and then the kids get taken away again. Finally, parental rights are terminated but the kids have so many emotional problems that the system finds it hard to place them. Again, there are many who would take these kids, even with the emotional problems, but the system makes it hard to get them. I know, because I tried to adopt through the system and was told that because of my past traumatic experiences they didn't think I'd be able to handle a special needs child. Mind you, they determined this without doing any sort of psychological work up on me to find out if I could. I ended up going through an agency, who did so a psych eval on me and determined I would be good with a special needs child.

Sonshine · #49 01/21/11, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

But if the fetus is not an individual (i.e., not a person), then we're talking about something else. Then this would be a decision similar to the choice to amputate a limb, which the mother unquestionably has the legal right to do (the doctor may not be willing to do it, but no one would question her right to make that decision).

That argument gets a little sticky though when you consider the fact that is a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be convicted of a double murder. So, why is it not a baby if the mother doesn't want it, but it mysteriously becomes a baby when the mother does want it?

JuliaAnn · #50 01/22/11, 12:55 AM

it certainly isn't about the baby

But if the fetus is not an individual (i.e., not a person),

These are the sorts of grossly irresponsible, morally bankrupt concepts that abortion rights activists love. It's not a living soul, it's a tumor, right? A socially horrific growth of flesh that needs to be amputated, ground up like hamburger and flushed into the city sewer.

Hooray for mankind.

lilmizlayla · #51 01/22/11, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonshine

Why isn't it about the baby? If a pregnant woman is murdered then the murderer can be tried and convicted for 2 murders. That tells me that the government acknowldeges that it IS a baby. As such, that baby should be given the same right to life as any other human being.

I think the key is the woman WANTED the baby. Its her choice whether to bring a child into the world. The government gives recourse to those women who had every intention of bringing another life into this world and through no fault of their own...lost it due to negligence on the part of another.

The law is to offer redress in the courts for the woman. not the baby

tinknal · #52 01/22/11, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

I think the key is the woman WANTED the baby. Its her choice whether to bring a child into the world. The government gives recourse to those women who had every intention of bringing another life into this world and through no fault of their own...lost it due to negligence on the part of another.

The law is to offer redress in the courts for the woman. not the baby

How can you give redress to a dead person?

lilmizlayla · #53 01/22/11, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuliaAnn

it certainly isn't about the baby

But if the fetus is not an individual (i.e., not a person),

These are the sorts of grossly irresponsible, morally bankrupt concepts that abortion rights activists love. It's not a living soul, it's a tumor, right? A socially horrific growth of flesh that needs to be amputated, ground up like hamburger and flushed into the city sewer.

Hooray for mankind.

many say that..but that isnt true. my point is i think women have a right to decide for themselves. I wouldnt do it. I believe it is a baby. though I dont have the right to tell somebody else what is the right course for them. I am against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions under any circumstances.
As far as very early conception (6 weeks) it is difficult to argue that the fetus, undeveloped..is a feeling, thinking human being.
as much as you believe that those who are for the choice of abortion is immoral....are we going to start legislating morality? its a slippery slope.

lilmizlayla · #54 01/22/11, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

How can you give redress to a dead person?

If the woman isnt alive..then it is for the family. Not going to bring them back, but it is supposed to be a deterrent . Civil court is for punitive damages not offered in criminal courts.

.

tinknal · #55 01/22/11, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

as much as you believe that those who are for the choice of abortion is immoral....are we going to start legislating morality? its a slippery slope.

We already do, in a myriad of ways.

SquashNut · #56 01/22/11, 03:04 PM

If a woman miscarrige's a baby she mourns that child as if she had already held it in her arms. So why wouldn't it be a person.

||Downhome|| · #57 01/22/11, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shygal

But Obama isnt black, it must be so because I read it on Homesteading Today.

He is not! Never has been and never will be.

He does have African Ancestry, but he is not Black.

No more then a Jamaican,Haitian or African is.

Yes they all have African blood,and two of that group share similar history.
even referred to as a group as black.
in the US though,when Black is refered to the context is American Blacks, those that have history here in the US.

Those that are descended from people that have been here centuries both slave and slave master blood.

Michele is Black her husband is not.

He may have been subjected to certain things that Black Americans have but he does not share the history nor the benefit of the culture.

Even in the world of Black Americans there are differences in the culture but they still share certain things.

So how would this wanna be Black man gain any of that through his white Grand parents? He may have picked up some from friends but I will tell you white people are not the only bigots. Mixed people get it from both sides and that is how Obama would have been viewed by many on both sides of the rainbow. He also would not have to truly accept or embrace any of that culture that is truly American in nature, as he would know he could always escape to his safety net.

||Downhome|| · #58 01/22/11, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

why should you be able to? Only one parent receives the deduction. the custodial.

if I'm paying child support why should I not be able to? that child would be a dependent would it not? not like the income benefits my household. but still get to pay taxes on my gross salary.

seem that should get tacked on to the custodial parents gross total and subtracted from mine. or get some sort of credit for it.

in the case the parent actually covers complete care of the child they should receive any tax benefits for the child.

either parent still needs to have a house and such child or no so not like you can not really say that is a child cost. food,clothes,medical/dental, all of which is really 50/50 responsibility to be honest. what else is there?

if you remove a persons ability to have any control, I really can not see how you can hold them accountable in any way.

on the abortion front, the man should have some rights. if she wants to terminate and he does not want her to she should not be able to,and she should loose all parental rights and relived of financial responsibility.
if he wants a termination and she does not he should be relived of his parental rights and financial responsibility.
if they both want the baby then they should share equally in all things with that child.

it may be her body but the baby is a product of both parents, and as long as men are held to task they should have some say in the matter.
if a woman knows that she may be prevented from the abortion birth control option or that she may not be able to collect on child support. perhaps things would change a little. you can not put 100% of the burden on one party. but you can change the options.

Nevada · #59 01/22/11, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ||Downhome||

if he wants a termination and she does not he should be relived of his parental rights and financial responsibility.

It sounds good in theory, but I don't see how it could be implemented. Every father would secretly swear-out a notarized affidavit saying that he wanted to terminate the pregnancy, then hide it somewhere. In the event of a divorce he would present the affidavit to the court to circumvent child support. If the mother denies that they even discussed it, he'll just testify that she's lying just to get money out of him.

tinknal · #60 01/22/11, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

It sounds good in theory, but I don't see how it could be implemented. Every father would secretly swear-out a notarized affidavit saying that he wanted to terminate the pregnancy, then hide it somewhere. In the event of a divorce he would present the affidavit to the court to circumvent child support. If the mother denies that they even discussed it, he'll just testify that she's lying just to get money out of him.

I would imagine such a scenario would only involve unmarried people.