|
|
|
|
|
|
|
freedomlover
Newbie
Posts: 3
Registered: 12-10-2011 Location:
|
|
posted on 12-10-2011 at 15:06 |
|
|
| |
Child support is Immoral
I write this knowing that most people have succumb to the mischaracterization of the immoral, illegal, transfer payment known as child support. The name is as misleading as the Patriot Act.
Let me state my assumptions:
1) Upon engaging in sex you establish a joint liability with your partner for the care of the child.
2) Tied to that joint liability is a joint and valuable asset, the right to love, direct, mold, and influence the child.
3) If the mother has the right to terminate the life, so does the father... you decide whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. You cannot have it both ways.
4) If the mother has the right to abandon a baby at the firehouse, so should the father... if not, then neither does the father.
5) If the mother has the right to give the child up for adoption, then so does the father.
6) A rich couple can give up their child to a poor couple despite the 'best interest' of the children, therefore, income of the biological father/mother does not determine 'entitlement' of the child.
7) Regardless of a parents income, no child has the right to sue for an allowance. Custodial parents cannot get a right not due the child.
Those things stated, imagine two people go into business together. They take out a loan to buy a factory and start producing the their product. Each year one partner goes out to generate new business and sell product, the other partner runs the factory. A dispute arises and the partners want to go their separate ways, but they cannot agree on how to divide their business.
They go before a judge and get a judge who happens to specialize in family law. The judge decides, based upon his experience the following:
1) The partner who runs the factory on a day-to-day basis is awarded the factory.
2) The partner who runs the factory is entitled to the profits on the factory.
3) The partner who generates business is held liable for the loans on the factory.
4) The partner who generates business is obligated to continue generating business for the factory.
5) The partner who generates business is only allowed to see the profits, not share in them.
6) The partner who generates business is not allowed to direct which products are made.
7) In the event of a mechanical failure, the partner who generates business is obligated to pay for the repair and/or provide insurance against mechanical failures.
8) The partner who runs the factory may optionally hire someone else to run the factory and make the other partner pay half the salary. Profits realized by this arrangement go to the partner who use to run the factory.
Obviously this is unjust. The individual who runs the factory will claim that they do not have time to generate business AND run the factory.
But the woman will say, children are not factories they are not property therefore different rules apply! Lets see if this makes sense.
1) Is custody a net liability or asset? If it were a liability then people would not choose to have children, therefore children are valued more as an asset than a liability.
2) If both parents have equal liability, then they have equal right to the fruits of their labor (meeting the liability).
3) If both parents want full or (80%) rights to the fruit, then on what grounds to they claim they they only owe 50% or less of the liability?
4) On what grounds can one partner be denied their parental rights after doing NOTHING wrong to harm the children?
Conclusion: All custody should be automatically 50/50. Either alternate weeks, months, seasons, or years.
Given that the assets are allocated 50/50, the liability is also allocated 50/50 and there are no transfer payments.
If one parent does not want 50% custody, then they have a right to give their child up for adoption to someone who wants their 50% of custody. If the other parent wants that extra custody then they 'adopt' the child for that time and no transfer payments are required.
If neither parent wants custody, then they can both agree to give the child up for adoption (best interest and all). If they cannot agree then an auction should be held, high bid pays their bid to the low bider. Low bidder gets custody.
So, if you are a dad beating yourself up because you cannot 'pay support', stop it! You are not morally obligated to pay for you kids when they are not in your custody! If you are unable to take custody, then you can start to feel bad... but in this event, like the 15 year old mom, you should consider giving up your child to adoption out of love for them.
|
|
|
|
luvmygirls
Newbie
Posts: 1
Registered: 12-31-2011 Location:
|
|
posted on 12-31-2011 at 14:36 |
|
|
| |
Immorality is not caring what happens to your children.
Well some people shouldn't have children and clearly you are one of those people. Suggesting putting children up for adoption to avoid child support? I wouldn't dump a dog to get out of my obligations let alone a child! I didn't choose to have 4 children on my own and I don't intend to raise them on my own. I came into this marriage with more than my soon to be ex-husband did as far as monetary assets. I then raised his daughter from a previous marriage whom I later adopted. We together had 3 more children. I had a good paying job with excellent benefits when I met my husband. Together we decided I would raise our children. Now 15 years later he has decided he isn't happy. I am left unemployed with 4 of his children. Your theory is that it is immoral to ask that he contribute money to put food into the mouths of his children? I will ask that he do just that and thankfully my children will be awarded something to provide for their needs. Despite ignorance such as yours. My soon to be ex-husband wants to provide for his children as any real man with a true love of his children would do.
|
|
|
|
odear6
Newbie
Posts: 5
Registered: 02-16-2012 Location:
|
|
posted on 03-07-2012 at 22:48 |
|
|
| |
NOT CARING
You are correct, no man should be morally obligated to provide for their children....because it takes more than a MAN to be a FATHER....just as it take more than a women to be a MOTHER.
Children don't ask to be brought into a family, they are the innocent party and for either parent (mother or father) no provide for their children is wrong...its not a topic that can be debated or even reason.
So your statement of comparing children to a factory, I can see way your boss of your factory fired you!!! Grow up and get a really job, be the dad or the mom that you should be.
|
|
|
|
victim
Newbie
Posts: 1
Registered: 06-29-2013 Location:
|
|
posted on 06-29-2013 at 06:32 |
|
|
| |
Another typical judgement...
I am usually quite person but on the two responses below I just cant keep my mouth shut.
1st - he makes valid point's and does not want to give kids up , your responses remind me of the same people who are all over the unemployment situation! Why don't you get a better job , why don't you stop collecting and work at KFC , why why why! First of all 90% of Americans on unemployment paid into it and it is mandatory from our government , this is why they pay and it is their money - the money never used from their parents and so on and all the money they paid into it! It is people like you who judge without all the facts and would rather condemn your fellow American then shout out at the illegal aliens getting all the FREE money and services that they are not entitled to or ever paid into. He states a lot of equal rights in most of his points but your thinking is killing America because it is all blindsided like your views.
BTW im not on unemployment but when I hear a point I always research the other side before I make a judgment call , its called wisdom like King Soloman.
|
|
|
|
huskyalaska
Member
Posts: 4
Registered: 09-24-2020 Location: Juno
|
|
posted on 10-13-2020 at 05:59 |
|
|
| |
Supporting your child is not immoral
I hate the child support system. But to say that child support is immoral is idiotic. Sorry. A child needs support. You are the father or mother. Support the child in every way possible, end of story.
So when you say that it is immoral, what I think you really mean is that the SYSTEM is immoral. I say that it is impractical. It is politically motivated. Just like abortion. And isn't it interesting that both have to do with owning up to the responsibilities of parenthood.
If you have a child, support it. But that's not about government or law. It is about love, respect, and responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Processed in 2.283 seconds, 12 queries
Virgins reserves the right to block, delete, or edit any and all posts.
The Moderator has sole discretion on the content of this site. Anyone who posts accepts these terms, and waives any and
all rights to bring any legal action against Virgins. If you disapprove of any of the above, do not use, read, or post in Virgins
|
|
|
|
