What the actual fuck?!?!?!

[Czernobog]

Not when it comes to innocent children, either, it would appear.

What is YOUR plan for the innocent children?

To not deny them the document they need to survive and grow as a member of society.

 

[Boss]

To not deny them the document they need to survive and grow as a member of society.

The document won't be denied to them, it will be denied to their mothers who need it to get government assistance. Once they are placed in foster care, we'll have a means by which they can obtain needed documents.

Why don't YOU worry about growing as a member of society? That would be a great first step for you. Try to understand, we're not all here to provide for you and your illegitimate offspring. If you don't like it, tough shit... next step will be to cut your balls off so you can't spawn.

 

[Czernobog]

To not deny them the document they need to survive and grow as a member of society.

The document won't be denied to them, it will be denied to their mothers who need it to get government assistance. Once they are placed in foster care, we'll have a means by which they can obtain needed documents.

Why don't YOU worry about growing as a member of society? That would be a great first step for you. Try to understand, we're not all here to provide for you and your illegitimate offspring. If you don't like it, tough shit... next step will be to cut your balls off so you can't spawn.

And what happens when you get a mother who isn't going to rely on government aid,and has no intention of telling you who the fucking father is? She is providing for her child without your presumed government assistance, because she is self-sufficient. So. No neglect there for you to come swooping in taking the kid. Unfortunately, since the mother, by your stupid assessment, didn't get a birth certificate for her kid, her kid grows up not being allowed to go to school, to get a job, or anything else. You have deprived a child of a life, and a future, just because you felt entitled to have information that a woman did not wish to share.

And in your sick mind, you have done no harm to the child.

 

[Czernobog]

To not deny them the document they need to survive and grow as a member of society.

The document won't be denied to them, it will be denied to their mothers who need it to get government assistance. Once they are placed in foster care, we'll have a means by which they can obtain needed documents.

Why don't YOU worry about growing as a member of society? That would be a great first step for you. Try to understand, we're not all here to provide for you and your illegitimate offspring. If you don't like it, tough shit... next step will be to cut your balls off so you can't spawn.

And what happens when you get a mother who isn't going to rely on government aid,and has no intention of telling you who the fucking father is? She is providing for her child without your presumed government assistance, because she is self-sufficient. So. No neglect there for you to come swooping in taking the kid. Unfortunately, since the mother, by your stupid assessment, didn't get a birth certificate for her kid, her kid grows up not being allowed to go to school, to get a job, or anything else. You have deprived a child of a life, and a future, just because you felt entitled to have information that a woman did not wish to share.

And in your sick mind, you have done no harm to the child.

Gee. Whaddoyakno? Suddenly Mr. "Ihavalltheanswers" doesn't have an answer. See? That's what happens when you assume that every unmarried pregnant person is an irresponsible, lazy slut who just wants to live off the government teet.

 

[Boss]

And what happens when you get a mother who isn't going to rely on government aid,and has no intention of telling you who the fucking father is? She is providing for her child without your presumed government assistance, because she is self-sufficient. So. No neglect there for you to come swooping in taking the kid. Unfortunately, since the mother, by your stupid assessment, didn't get a birth certificate for her kid, her kid grows up not being allowed to go to school, to get a job, or anything else. You have deprived a child of a life, and a future, just because you felt entitled to have information that a woman did not wish to share.

I've not read the bill, I have no idea what it says or how it outlines how things would work. So I am in no position to give an informed comment on this but I am quite sure people smarter than you have thought about it. What I see you doing is poo-pooing an idea right out of the box because it dares to challenge your liberal viewpoint.

Again... here's the problem: We need a way to hold fathers of illegitimate children accountable for the financial burden of raising their kids. I've asked you repeatedly in this thread to tell us how you'd go about doing that and you simply ignore me and refuse to answer that question. I have to assume you don't have a solution. What else can I conclude?

This plan may very well have flaws but it does seem to be a proactive step in trying to address a problem. And I am sorry but I don't see it as ME depriving anyone of anything to pass a law that says a birth certificate requires the names of both parents. We pass laws all the time to require all kinds of things, that's not me depriving someone. Comply with the requirement and you're not deprived of anything.

 

[Wilbur Right]

We've got to do something about this system that allows men to escape their responsibilities and lay the onus on society to pay for. T

LMAO. So bossy, the knower of all things concerning child support.

How come the only two men I know who have ever gone to jail for non payment of child support, have never in their lives received welfare of any sort. How could that be?

And what is the exact number of people who are responsible for creating illegitimate children and they dont pay child support vs. the number of men who marry, have kids, divorce and don't pay child.support.

What's that number bossy? I want to make sure you are bitching about the right group of men.

 

[Boss]

Wilbur, what the fuck are you sniveling about?

 

[MarcATL]

More far rightwing fringe scorged earth policies.

#SMHGOP

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[hazlnut]

So, let's set the stage shall we?

Abortion is evil. It is wantonly killing/murdering innocent babies-to-be that did nothing wrong, and we must do everything we can to encourage pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term, and have their babies.

However, in Illinois, apparently, if a woman has a child on her own, that child shall be decreed to not exist. No. That wasn't a typo. Republican representatives John D Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler sponsored the bill that would amend the state’s Vital Records Act. Here is the bill’s draconian thrust:

‘…provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate.’

‘Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.’​

Now, forget public assistance. The fact that a child is ineligible for public assistance without a birth certificate is a given. Clearly, that is the intended purpose of this amendment - so that, rather than allow a child to receive public assistance, the state can "go after" the biological father to force then to pay child support. Never mind that a state can't really "force' that - one would be amazed at the number of biological fathers who would simply go willingly to serve their civil Contempt of Court sentences, rather than pay the child support; and that doesn't even take into account the fathers who live in different states, making the enforcement of child support rulings so costg prohibitive that most states don't even bother.

The unintended consequences are ind-boggling. Schools require a birth certificate for enrollment. So, any child subject to this amendment will not be able to get an education. He/She will also not be able to join the military, drive a car, vote, get a passport, or even prove citizenship.

Now, realistically, I don't expect that this bill will actually pass. However, it is breath-taking to realize that Republicans in Illinois would care so little about children that they would even suggest such a destructive bill, punishing women for doing exactly what they want them to do - not have an abortion!

This one I have to agree with.

Women wishing public support should name the father. Thus if the father works and can provide for the child, he must do so.


They're just holding up the birth document to get these women to name the man. None will have a problem with this. And the men who do happen to work can pick up part of the tab for raising the child.

 

[hazlnut]

Makes sense to me. Where's the problem?

So, preventing children from getting an education, a job, drive a car, or even prove their own citizenship seems perfectly reasonable to you?

That will never happen.

These women will give up the name of their baby-daddy in order to get the free assistance.

And if turns out the daddy is also her daddy, we can go arrest him.

 

[SAYIT]

Wilbur, what the fuck are you sniveling about?

Thank you for doing all the heavy lifting on this thread and saving me the trouble of trying to make sense to those who are willfully blind. You've said pretty much everything I would have (and a lot better than I would have).

This subject boils down to special gov't benefits for "special" people. Constitutionally the federal gov't may "promote the general welfare." Taxing the wealth of economically productive people to benefit some who produce babies is not "the general welfare." Individual states may choose wealth redistribution ... not the federal gov't.

 

[koshergrl]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

 

[hazlnut]

So, let's set the stage shall we?

Abortion is evil. It is wantonly killing/murdering innocent babies-to-be that did nothing wrong, and we must do everything we can to encourage pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term, and have their babies.

However, in Illinois, apparently, if a woman has a child on her own, that child shall be decreed to not exist. No. That wasn't a typo. Republican representatives John D Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler sponsored the bill that would amend the state’s Vital Records Act. Here is the bill’s draconian thrust:

‘…provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate.’

‘Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.’​

Now, forget public assistance. The fact that a child is ineligible for public assistance without a birth certificate is a given. Clearly, that is the intended purpose of this amendment - so that, rather than allow a child to receive public assistance, the state can "go after" the biological father to force then to pay child support. Never mind that a state can't really "force' that - one would be amazed at the number of biological fathers who would simply go willingly to serve their civil Contempt of Court sentences, rather than pay the child support; and that doesn't even take into account the fathers who live in different states, making the enforcement of child support rulings so costg prohibitive that most states don't even bother.

The unintended consequences are ind-boggling. Schools require a birth certificate for enrollment. So, any child subject to this amendment will not be able to get an education. He/She will also not be able to join the military, drive a car, vote, get a passport, or even prove citizenship.

Now, realistically, I don't expect that this bill will actually pass. However, it is breath-taking to realize that Republicans in Illinois would care so little about children that they would even suggest such a destructive bill, punishing women for doing exactly what they want them to do - not have an abortion!

And...

Think about this. Women are more likely to have sex with a man with a job, a car, an apartment...or house. A man who has it going on. NOT a man living at home with his mother.

So, when she goes to file for public assistance, the state now has a record of the father... and the state can ask... how much does he make? And why doesn't he support the child?



Maybe the bill as written is a misfire... but I like the idea of baby-daddy's with jobs having to pay for their babies.

 

[koshergrl]

To not deny them the document they need to survive and grow as a member of society.

The document won't be denied to them, it will be denied to their mothers who need it to get government assistance. Once they are placed in foster care, we'll have a means by which they can obtain needed documents.

Why don't YOU worry about growing as a member of society? That would be a great first step for you. Try to understand, we're not all here to provide for you and your illegitimate offspring. If you don't like it, tough shit... next step will be to cut your balls off so you can't spawn.

And what happens when you get a mother who isn't going to rely on government aid,and has no intention of telling you who the fucking father is? She is providing for her child without your presumed government assistance, because she is self-sufficient. So. No neglect there for you to come swooping in taking the kid. Unfortunately, since the mother, by your stupid assessment, didn't get a birth certificate for her kid, her kid grows up not being allowed to go to school, to get a job, or anything else. You have deprived a child of a life, and a future, just because you felt entitled to have information that a woman did not wish to share.

And in your sick mind, you have done no harm to the child.

The entity doing harm to the child in that event, by denying a child constitutionally protected rights, is our oppressive, tyrannical government.

This is why people need.to get off the government tit. Fuck the feds.

 

[hazlnut]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

This is incorrect.

False.

 

[koshergrl]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

This is incorrect.

False.

No, it is not. I register children every year you retard.

 

[SAYIT]

More far rightwing fringe scorged earth policies.

Ah yes ... the Chicken Little, sky-is-falling, loony leftard lament is heard. Require the daddy to man up and pay for HIS kid? How draconian!

Women wishing public support should name the father. Thus if the father works and can provide for the child, he must do so. They're just holding up the birth document to get these women to name the man. None will have a problem with this. And the men who do happen to work can pick up part of the tab for raising the child.

Requiring the father to support the child? What a concept! Be careful H-nut ... there might be a conservative within you and your comrades will tag you an alt-right wingnut.

BTW, it may be just as effective to issue the B.C. but require both mom's and deadbeat dad's name on it to qualify for gov't bennies. She can choose to protect the baby daddy AND pay for her kid herself.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

This is incorrect.

False.

No, it is not. I register children every year you retard.

My school district does require a birth certificate. I had to produce the kid's certificates when we moved into the area last year. I'm not sure where you're living, but here in Ohio they do.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I disagree. I expect men to lawyer up as soon as they're named and that's when the legal fees come in. And the database will certainly be the next step. It won't take long for folks to realize that if you had the database in place, you only need to test once and keep the results.

And again, I'm not against cracking down on deadbeat Dad's. I'd much rather put them on the hook than see them escape. But cutting off benefits with a pretty harsh timeline and potentially lifelong consequences for the child? That's a very very extreme solution to put on a new mother who is dealing with God knows what else.

Usually, those who sue the government don't get anywhere. The government retains lawyers already, there is no extra expense. Again, there is no need for a database. This is a small isolated problem that only involves a relatively small number of individuals. There would certainly be constitutional issues with a database, so that idea is DOA already. Put it out of your head because it's total nonsense.

And again, it's not going to mean any detrimental consequence for the child that they don't already face. I don't care what the mother is dealing with, her child comes first. If she doesn't care about the child, we can find suitable parents who would. I would wager that most of these moms would be forthcoming with naming a father if it meant losing benefits.

If you're not against cracking down on deadbeat dads, what is your proposal to deal with this problem? I'm not seeing any better alternative recommended and I'm all ears... present something that would do the trick and we'll discuss it. In my opinion, this is precisely the type of proactive steps we should be taking... cut the benefits off if they can't name the baby-daddy.

No, I'll confess, I don't have a really better idea. My concern is in the exceptions that you can legislate your way out of with time. Non-consensual sex could easily lead to a situation where the mother can't name the father. A kid produced out of wedlock has enough problems to overcome on their own with saddling Mom with some extra trauma on top of that. I'm also thinking that enforcing a father to submit to a paternity test is going to be a pretty difficult thing to enforce and enforce correctly.

The only solutions I have are what I put forward before:
1. Make birth control freely available and encourage usage for everyone. Try to create a culture where nearly all pregnancies are planned.
2. Go to the guaranteed minimum income system and eliminate all of these welfare programs.

 

[Czernobog]

So, let's set the stage shall we?

Abortion is evil. It is wantonly killing/murdering innocent babies-to-be that did nothing wrong, and we must do everything we can to encourage pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term, and have their babies.

However, in Illinois, apparently, if a woman has a child on her own, that child shall be decreed to not exist. No. That wasn't a typo. Republican representatives John D Cavaletto and Keith Wheeler sponsored the bill that would amend the state’s Vital Records Act. Here is the bill’s draconian thrust:

‘…provides that if the unmarried mother cannot or refuses to name the child’s father, either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence or, within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, in court, on the birth certificate.’

‘Provides that absent DNA evidence or a family member’s name, a birth certificate will not be issued and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid from the State for support of the child.’​

Now, forget public assistance. The fact that a child is ineligible for public assistance without a birth certificate is a given. Clearly, that is the intended purpose of this amendment - so that, rather than allow a child to receive public assistance, the state can "go after" the biological father to force then to pay child support. Never mind that a state can't really "force' that - one would be amazed at the number of biological fathers who would simply go willingly to serve their civil Contempt of Court sentences, rather than pay the child support; and that doesn't even take into account the fathers who live in different states, making the enforcement of child support rulings so costg prohibitive that most states don't even bother.

The unintended consequences are ind-boggling. Schools require a birth certificate for enrollment. So, any child subject to this amendment will not be able to get an education. He/She will also not be able to join the military, drive a car, vote, get a passport, or even prove citizenship.

Now, realistically, I don't expect that this bill will actually pass. However, it is breath-taking to realize that Republicans in Illinois would care so little about children that they would even suggest such a destructive bill, punishing women for doing exactly what they want them to do - not have an abortion!

This one I have to agree with.

Women wishing public support should name the father. Thus if the father works and can provide for the child, he must do so.


They're just holding up the birth document to get these women to name the man. None will have a problem with this. And the men who do happen to work can pick up part of the tab for raising the child.

Except this wouldn't effect just women who are on public support. You're making the same assumption that Boss made. Namely, that every single woman that has a kid is automatically applying for public assistance. They're not, and this stupid law would have done far more harm than good.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk