Elections have Consequences

[ptbw forever]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

If the entire country has a meltdown every time a SCOTUS judge is appointed do you think maybe the federal government might have too much power?

Just a thought......

No.

The schools and the media have too much power to create an entire idiocracy.

 

[ptbw forever]

I strongly agree that elections have consequences. A conservative court won't be the cause for denying a woman access to an abortion. The conservative position is that should be settled at the state level. So when thinking about the next election, that thought is best recalled when voting for state legislative representatives and your governor.

Plenty of conservatives support the idea of a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion
Perry Challenged to Back Federal Amdt Stopping Abortions | LifeNews.com

And.....

If conservatives can get a Constitutional amendment banning abortions, that would mean that literally the vast majority of the country and the federal government support it.

 

[Faun]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

There is no such thing as womens rights.

By definition, a right is something that is available to everyone.

So you think since a man can't get pregnant- women don't have any right to choose whether or not to be pregnant?

You sure men can't get pregnant ?

If a man can get pregnant, then he has the same rights over his own body that a woman has.

It takes two to make a pregnancy happen.

So? Does this mean you finally learned a quarter is not a year?

 

[EverCurious]

I'm with you.

I had two kidlits myself. I say dad's should have some kind of say, I'm just not entirely sure how to work it out legally/fairly yet.

So lets say your husband/partner told you that he wanted you to get an abortion- should he have been able to require you to get an abortion?

Or if not- be off the hook of paying for his kids?

I think there's some merit in that argument yea. If you're fucking someone and get pregnant you should be able to have an adult conversation with the father and make a decision about the future of that "family" and abortion is part of that discussion if it's on the table.

It could be argued that the mother could indeed have the child despite a fathers desire not to, but there should be some idk relief that father RE 18+ years of child support that they maybe can't afford. Why does she have all the say in /forcing/ him to become a father?

It could be argued that the mother could indeed abort the child despite the fathers desire to keep it, and there should be some relief for either or both, RE the father who wants the child and the mother who wants an abortion or would have it. Again, why does she have all the say?

I do not know the answer's here, but I do think that the current system of the woman doing whatever she wants just because she happens to be biologically designed to carry a baby is a bit shitty. They both fucked, they both got pregnant, yet she can literally ruin a mans life via child support and she can kill his kid while he has zero say in which/what happens; that's unfair and unjust IMO.

The idea behind child support was to make fathers responsible for their kids. Abortion lets women do the exact opposite. It's sexist on it's face, I get why on the one hand (her body and such) but I also see it's unfairness to fathers (be them wanting the kid or not) It's not... "equal representation under the law" or something, idk how to best word it.

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

There is no such thing as womens rights.

By definition, a right is something that is available to everyone.

So you think since a man can't get pregnant- women don't have any right to choose whether or not to be pregnant?

You sure men can't get pregnant ?

If a man can get pregnant, then he has the same rights over his own body that a woman has.

He's always had those same "rights"...by definition.

 

[Syriusly]

So lets say your husband/partner told you that he wanted you to get an abortion- should he have been able to require you to get an abortion?

Or if not- be off the hook of paying for his kids?

I think there's some merit in that argument yea. If you're fucking someone and get pregnant you should be able to have an adult conversation with the father and make a decision about the future of that "family" and abortion is part of that discussion if it's on the table.

It could be argued that the mother could indeed have the child despite a fathers desire not to, but there should be some idk relief that father RE 18+ years of child support that they maybe can't afford. Why does she have all the say in /forcing/ him to become a father?

It could be argued that the mother could indeed abort the child despite the fathers desire to keep it, and there should be some relief for either or both, RE the father who wants the child and the mother who wants an abortion or would have it. Again, why does she have all the say?

I do not know the answer's here, but I do think that the current system of the woman doing whatever she wants just because she happens to be biologically designed to carry a baby is a bit shitty. They both fucked, they both got pregnant, yet she can literally ruin a mans life via child support and she can kill his kid while he has zero say in which/what happens; that's unfair and unjust IMO.

The idea behind child support was to make fathers responsible for their kids. Abortion lets women do the exact opposite. It's sexist on it's face, I get why on the one hand (her body and such) but I also see it's unfairness to fathers (be them wanting the kid or not) It's not... "equal representation under the law" or something, idk how to best word it.

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

 

[Syriusly]

I strongly agree that elections have consequences. A conservative court won't be the cause for denying a woman access to an abortion. The conservative position is that should be settled at the state level. So when thinking about the next election, that thought is best recalled when voting for state legislative representatives and your governor.

Plenty of conservatives support the idea of a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion
Perry Challenged to Back Federal Amdt Stopping Abortions | LifeNews.com

And.....

If conservatives can get a Constitutional amendment banning abortions, that would mean that literally the vast majority of the country and the federal government support it.

Absolutely- I don't think that there is any chance of it passing- I was responding to your claim that a conservative position is to let the states decide- clearly many of your fellow conservatives disagree with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

A woman's right to kill the future president or the next wacko liberal got it.

May as well, a woman probably killed the second coming of Jesus Christ a decade ago...







.



Those bastard's






.

And did the world a favor.

yep killed the next Barack Obama

You Trumpkins do have a thing about killing Barack Obama.

 

[Syriusly]

So lets say your husband/partner told you that he wanted you to get an abortion- should he have been able to require you to get an abortion?

Or if not- be off the hook of paying for his kids?

I think there's some merit in that argument yea. If you're fucking someone and get pregnant you should be able to have an adult conversation with the father and make a decision about the future of that "family" and abortion is part of that discussion if it's on the table.

It could be argued that the mother could indeed have the child despite a fathers desire not to, but there should be some idk relief that father RE 18+ years of child support that they maybe can't afford. Why does she have all the say in /forcing/ him to become a father?

It could be argued that the mother could indeed abort the child despite the fathers desire to keep it, and there should be some relief for either or both, RE the father who wants the child and the mother who wants an abortion or would have it. Again, why does she have all the say?

I do not know the answer's here, but I do think that the current system of the woman doing whatever she wants just because she happens to be biologically designed to carry a baby is a bit shitty. They both fucked, they both got pregnant, yet she can literally ruin a mans life via child support and she can kill his kid while he has zero say in which/what happens; that's unfair and unjust IMO.

The idea behind child support was to make fathers responsible for their kids. Abortion lets women do the exact opposite. It's sexist on it's face, I get why on the one hand (her body and such) but I also see it's unfairness to fathers (be them wanting the kid or not) It's not... "equal representation under the law" or something, idk how to best word it.

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Another one who doesn't understand equal protection under the law.

Where don't I understand equal protection under the law?

Again
Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy- just like men.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

And whoever is pregnant- man or woman- controls his or her own body- and is responsible for making the choices for his or her own body. Husbands no longer 'own' their wives and get to decide what their woman will do.

 

[Syriusly]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

A woman's right to kill the future president or the next wacko liberal got it.

May as well, a woman probably killed the second coming of Jesus Christ a decade ago...







.



Those bastard's






.

I guess your God just wasn't able to do something as simple as having an Angel show up and tell the woman "Hey there, second coming of Christ is in your womb".....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no such thing as womens rights.

By definition, a right is something that is available to everyone.

So you think since a man can't get pregnant- women don't have any right to choose whether or not to be pregnant?

You sure men can't get pregnant ?

If a man can get pregnant, then he has the same rights over his own body that a woman has.

It takes two to make a pregnancy happen.

So? Does this mean you finally learned a quarter is not a year?

Does this mean you were wrong obama never had a GDP over 3.0%

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Elections do have Consequences.

One of the primary reasons I voted against Trump and for Clinton was because of the Supreme Court.

I have heard so many people who are otherwise pro-choice and pro-union vote for Trump just because they wanted to 'drain the swamp' and just take a hammer to the establishment.

Well this is what we get. And I am not bitching about Trump's selection- if anything I am impressed that he is such a solid jurist- unlike some of Trump's lower court picks. This pick was the outcome of the last Presidential election. And he is going to be confirmed to the Court unless by some bizarre circumstance he announces he will vote against Roe v. Wade before the confirmation vote.

Elections do have Consequences.

I just hope that those how believe in woman's right to chose remember that come the next election.

A woman's right to kill the future president or the next wacko liberal got it.

May as well, a woman probably killed the second coming of Jesus Christ a decade ago...







.



Those bastard's






.

And did the world a favor.

yep killed the next Barack Obama

You Trumpkins do have a thing about killing Barack Obama.

I said the next obama no skin off my teeth

 

[EverCurious]

I think there's some merit in that argument yea. If you're fucking someone and get pregnant you should be able to have an adult conversation with the father and make a decision about the future of that "family" and abortion is part of that discussion if it's on the table.

It could be argued that the mother could indeed have the child despite a fathers desire not to, but there should be some idk relief that father RE 18+ years of child support that they maybe can't afford. Why does she have all the say in /forcing/ him to become a father?

It could be argued that the mother could indeed abort the child despite the fathers desire to keep it, and there should be some relief for either or both, RE the father who wants the child and the mother who wants an abortion or would have it. Again, why does she have all the say?

I do not know the answer's here, but I do think that the current system of the woman doing whatever she wants just because she happens to be biologically designed to carry a baby is a bit shitty. They both fucked, they both got pregnant, yet she can literally ruin a mans life via child support and she can kill his kid while he has zero say in which/what happens; that's unfair and unjust IMO.

The idea behind child support was to make fathers responsible for their kids. Abortion lets women do the exact opposite. It's sexist on it's face, I get why on the one hand (her body and such) but I also see it's unfairness to fathers (be them wanting the kid or not) It's not... "equal representation under the law" or something, idk how to best word it.

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

No one has suggested that welfare is restricted by gender, nor that a custodial father can't get welfare, you're deflecting.

I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can. Thereby, in response to your comment that "if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is" - I debate that point. A mother does indeed have the ability to foist her financial obligations for a child (aka child support) off on someone else (via welfare.) I will agree that yes, a father with custody would be similarly able to get welfare for that child.

However, my point remains; that a mother, and specifically a mother who choices to have a child the father does not want, is able to foist her financial responsibility off on someone else (the taxpayer) vs the father, who did not want the child and would chose abortion or adoption, has no such luxury and is forced to pay child support "against his will." Again, I do not argue that child support and welfare shouldn't exist, I merely debate your expression that a mother is actually held financially responsible for her personal and independent decision to have said child, regardless of the fathers wishes.

For the record, my point for fathers right to some measure of decision re abortion is actually on the other end; that a father who wants the child should have some say - however I have no idea how we could fairly nor justly figure that out. My good friend's wife had an abortion without his knowledge, he was devastated that his child was killed without him having any say or even knowledge of it's impending. It's not that I'm against women having the "ability" to have an abortion (ie I want it made illegal or anything) it's merely the reality that a father should have rights regarding their unborn child too - at present they have NONE and there is zero recourse /either/ way the mother decides (to abort or not) I see this as inherently unfair to both the father AND frankly the unborn/potential child. There is zero argument you can make that if an aborted normal/average child were born, they would choose to have been aborted. IF a father is willing to take custody of a child, rather than the child be aborted, then why should the unborn child's logically presumed opinion on life or death be dismissed as "invalid" or I suppose "unimportant" might be a better word?

 

[Wyatt earp]

A woman's right to kill the future president or the next wacko liberal got it.

May as well, a woman probably killed the second coming of Jesus Christ a decade ago...







.



Those bastard's






.

And did the world a favor.

yep killed the next Barack Obama

You Trumpkins do have a thing about killing Barack Obama.

I said the next obama no skin off my teeth

You have to realize when talking to liberals they are not going the sharpest knifes in the kitchen drawer.



.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

No one has suggested that welfare is restricted by gender, nor that a custodial father can't get welfare, you're deflecting.

I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

Actually either a mother or a father can- both parents are financially obligated to support their child- both parents- not just the father, not just the mother.

The custodial parent- or parents- may receive government benefits- but that has nothing to do with their gender.

If the father is raising the child- the mother is obligated to pay child support. If the father qualifies for 'welfare' then he gets welfare.

Gender doesn't change any of that.

 

[EverCurious]

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

No one has suggested that welfare is restricted by gender, nor that a custodial father can't get welfare, you're deflecting.

I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

Actually either a mother or a father can- both parents are financially obligated to support their child- both parents- not just the father, not just the mother.

The custodial parent- or parents- may receive government benefits- but that has nothing to do with their gender.

If the father is raising the child- the mother is obligated to pay child support. If the father qualifies for 'welfare' then he gets welfare.

Gender doesn't change any of that.

Do you not read? I said, no one is suggesting that welfare is gender specific. Nor did I say that a custodial father would be denied welfare. Again, you're deflecting because you don't want to actually discuss the point I made. Fine. Then don't discuss my point, no problem. But stop trying to discuss arguments that I never made.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see what is 'sexist' about a woman- who takes on all of the risk of pregnancy and child birth- being the one to decide whether to be pregnant or not.

Men don't want to have the risk of 'their lives being ruined' to support their own children- can certainly choose not to have sex or to use condoms.

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

However, my point remains; that a mother, and specifically a mother who choices to have a child the father does not want, is able to foist her financial responsibility off on someone else (the taxpayer) vs the father, who did not want the child and would chose abortion or adoption, has no such luxury and is forced to pay child support "against his will." Again, I do not argue that child support and welfare shouldn't exist, I merely debate your expression that a mother is actually held financially responsible for her personal and independent decision to have said child, regardless of the fathers wishes.

Since my sister has been a single mother for quite sometime due to her personal and independent decision to have a child- and has never received any welfare or public support. My sister was very much held financially responsible for her personal and independent decision to have her child.

Of course my sister also was the one who went through 9 months of pregnancy, with a birth that permanently changed her health, and risked great injury and possible death- while the father of course suffered no physical pain, no harm to his health and never risked great injury or possible death.

When the man risks as much as the woman does- then he can have as much say in a pregnancy.

 

[Syriusly]

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

No one has suggested that welfare is restricted by gender, nor that a custodial father can't get welfare, you're deflecting.

I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

Actually either a mother or a father can- both parents are financially obligated to support their child- both parents- not just the father, not just the mother.

The custodial parent- or parents- may receive government benefits- but that has nothing to do with their gender.

If the father is raising the child- the mother is obligated to pay child support. If the father qualifies for 'welfare' then he gets welfare.

Gender doesn't change any of that.

Do you not read? I said, no one is suggesting that welfare is gender specific. Nor did I say that a custodial father would be denied welfare. Again, you're deflecting because you don't want to actually discuss the point I made. Fine. Then don't discuss my point, no problem. But stop trying to discuss arguments that I never made.

Quoting you:
I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

If you don't want me to point out that your statement is false- then make sure it isn't false before you post.

 

[EverCurious]

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

No one has suggested that welfare is restricted by gender, nor that a custodial father can't get welfare, you're deflecting.

I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

Actually either a mother or a father can- both parents are financially obligated to support their child- both parents- not just the father, not just the mother.

The custodial parent- or parents- may receive government benefits- but that has nothing to do with their gender.

If the father is raising the child- the mother is obligated to pay child support. If the father qualifies for 'welfare' then he gets welfare.

Gender doesn't change any of that.

Do you not read? I said, no one is suggesting that welfare is gender specific. Nor did I say that a custodial father would be denied welfare. Again, you're deflecting because you don't want to actually discuss the point I made. Fine. Then don't discuss my point, no problem. But stop trying to discuss arguments that I never made.

Quoting you:
I merely point out that a father cannot get welfare to cover his financial obligation to a child (aka child support,) a mother can however can.

If you don't want me to point out that your statement is false- then make sure it isn't false before you post.

Nothing I said is "false." A father, cannot receive welfare to pay his child support obligation. A mother, however, can receive welfare to pay for her child's needs.

 

[EverCurious]

But a woman can't. You sure you're arguing FOR women?

But a woman can't what?

Women can certainly choose whether or not to have sex and can chose to use contraception- to prevent pregnancy.

But if a woman has a child- she is financially obligated to the child just as the father is.

Actually she's not, because of welfare...

I'm not saying they should be gotten rid of, I'm just saying that a father cannot get welfare to pay his child support - vs a woman can go get welfare x2 - ie tax payers - to pay for the financial responsibility of her child.

Welfare is not restricted by gender.

I am not sure what you are considering 'welfare' but I suspect you mean some form of direct cash payment to parents.

Now a pregnant woman is eligible for benefits- but then again so would her husband if he lived with her
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30358

Be pregnant or have a child under age 19 who lives with them. A child who is 18 must be a full-time high school student. A pregnant woman (and her husband, if he lives with her) may qualify for help, even if they don't have any other children.


If you know of any welfare benefits that specifically exclude a father with primary custody of children- please let me know.

However, my point remains; that a mother, and specifically a mother who choices to have a child the father does not want, is able to foist her financial responsibility off on someone else (the taxpayer) vs the father, who did not want the child and would chose abortion or adoption, has no such luxury and is forced to pay child support "against his will." Again, I do not argue that child support and welfare shouldn't exist, I merely debate your expression that a mother is actually held financially responsible for her personal and independent decision to have said child, regardless of the fathers wishes.

Since my sister has been a single mother for quite sometime due to her personal and independent decision to have a child- and has never received any welfare or public support. My sister was very much held financially responsible for her personal and independent decision to have her child.

Of course my sister also was the one who went through 9 months of pregnancy, with a birth that permanently changed her health, and risked great injury and possible death- while the father of course suffered no physical pain, no harm to his health and never risked great injury or possible death.

When the man risks as much as the woman does- then he can have as much say in a pregnancy.

Okay. Doesn't really address my point that unlike a father, a mother /can/ foist their financial responsibility upon others.