Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are too many variable for the opt out to work.First abortion would have to be legal on the federal level with no restrictions or requirements or opposition from the states. Is it Oklahoma that is now requiring women to have and view an ultrasound before abortion? And some states require a counseling session and waiting period. These things the man would also have to do as well I would require to be present at the abortion.Often nearly a month can go by before pregnancy is detected giving roughly 2 months to notify the father, get an appointment to confirm the pregnancy, a DNA test and an appt. for an abortion and file court documents. There will be cases claiming there was not sufficient time to opt out.A determination will have to be made regarding relationship. Is this opt out available for married couples. What if the 2 were living together, in a LTR. Was there an expectation of pregnancy within the relationship. It will be he said she said. What if the father opts out and later wants parental rights. If a father can opt out of responsibility of the actual child, then can the mother decide she dosent want support and disallow parental rights of the father if she dosent want him in the child’s life. How will that affect fathers rights in situations where the father does want a role in the childs life. Conflicts.It is much easier on the court to leave it as is and make exceptions for special cases. And that is why men have no say.
Here's a solution:
Signing the opt-out legal document is voluntary. If a man is serious about not wanting kids, he's expected to sign the document shortly after having sex with someone for the first time, just in case she gets pregnant.
I'm not a big government guy, but I don't believe in letting anyone starve. At the minimum we should ensure everyone eats. It would only cost $4.6 billion per year to feed all of the 15 million children in poverty at $300 per month each, but it's not even necessary based on my jobs program below. We actually only spend $133 per person right now in the SNAP food stamp program in case anyone wants to say my amount is too low.
A possible permanent solution is to convert the existing welfare system and use existing funds in a direct jobs program. I ran a direct jobs program that was implemented after Hurricane Katrina. It was well liked by the participants, many who had been on government assistance for years. They picked from a list of open positions, were sent to nonprofits, hospitals and government agencies that needed workers temporarily, and everyone who came in automatically received a job. They also received training for a permanent position and money to go to school if they chose. Most of them stayed on with the nonprofit, hospital or govt agency after the program ended because they preferred their job over going back into the system.
This would be temporary and they must train for a permanent career while working. This would provide funds to eat, sleep, and training for a hand up in life.
My program would cost a max of $152 billion per year if we gave a $20,000 per year job to the 7.6 million families in poverty, which is cheaper than what we spent on cash, food and housing welfare in the year 2000 ($167 billion). We spend $495 billion on all forms of welfare today, so my option is much cheaper.
A single mother would have to give birth to 3 kids in order to be under the federal poverty line in this type of program.
All that being said, I still don't believe every woman who has a child alone will automatically be in poverty as others seem to be suggesting.
Last edited by Freedom123; 06-14-2011 at 03:29 PM..
But my dad didn't start out wealthy. He wasn't wealthy when I was born. But he's wealthy now.
If my dad can get where he's at today through hard work, a female can too.
It's all about what you want and what your work ethic is like. I'm too lazy to make as much money as my dad and I don't need as much money as him since I'm never having kids. But if a woman has a strong work ethic and she's determined to give her kids a good life, she can be successful. Maybe she'll never get rich, but she can at least work her way up to the point where she can afford kids without help from a male.
Why is it ok for a woman to sit around collecting welfare, but it's not okay for a male to opt out of paying child support?
Why should the dad work just so he can surrender half his salary, while a female can sit around doing nothing and collect money from the taxpayers and the dad?
You like to argue that women are equal, if not superior, to men. But now you're assuming a woman won't make much money. As another poster said, it's being sexist against your own gender to make an assumption like that.
And you totally deflected by the 3rd sentence of the quoted post.....why am I not surprised?
To the people saying abortion takes a toll on women:
There is a poster on this forum that said she got an abortion at 16 and she wouldn't hesitate to get another abortion if she got pregnant again.
Lot's of women wouldn't hesitate if it's the best choice given in a bad situation. Do you comprehend that the best choice isn't necessarily good times? It's a medical procedure and sometimes not an easy one. Any time you do anything like that it's going to take a toll and if you don't get that you get nothing.
In any other aspect of life, people say if you can't afford something then you can't have it. Why are you making an exception for babies?
Personally, I don't.....but society does. You have to deal with society....not me.
If it was just up to me.....I am all for forced sterilization when people have shown they are irresponsible about getting pregnant and having children that they can't care for properly......but that's just me.
Our society would not even condone forced sterilization of the man mentioned earlier....that had eleven kids by multiple women and supported none of them.
I would have NO PROBLEM having that guy forcibly sterilized.
Most people believe that mentally disabled people have a SACRED RIGHT to have children.....even though they could never, ever care for them without taxpayer help. Unbelievable.
The idea that having children is a sacred right is heavily bound up with people's religious beliefs.....sadly, most of the human race.....so......good luck trying to change it.
I'm not a big government guy, but I don't believe in letting anyone starve. At the minimum we should ensure everyone eats. It would only cost $4.6 billion per year to feed all of the 15 million children in poverty at $300 per month each, but it's not even necessary based on my jobs program below. We actually only spend $133 per person right now in the SNAP food stamp program in case anyone wants to say my amount is too low.
A possible permanent solution is to convert the existing welfare system and use existing funds in a direct jobs program. I ran a direct jobs program that was implemented after Hurricane Katrina. It was well liked by the participants, many who had been on government assistance for years. They picked from a list of open positions, were sent to nonprofits, hospitals and government agencies that needed workers temporarily, and everyone who came in automatically received a job. They also received training for a permanent position and money to go to school if they chose. Most of them stayed on with the nonprofit, hospital or govt agency after the program ended because they preferred their job over going back into the system.
This would be temporary and they must train for a permanent career while working. This would provide funds to eat, sleep, and training for a hand up in life.
My program would cost a max of $152 billion per year if we gave a $20,000 per year job to the 7.6 million families in poverty, which is cheaper than what we spent on cash, food and housing welfare in the year 2000 ($167 billion). We spend $495 billion on all forms of welfare today, so my option is much cheaper.
A single mother would have to give birth to 3 kids in order to be under the federal poverty line in this type of program.
All that being said, I still don't believe every woman who has a child alone will automatically be in poverty as others seem to be suggesting.
If there are all of these jobs available.....why do we have so many American's that cannot find a job.....ANY job?
I know of people that have signed up for "Manpower" etc......they don't get called for a lot of jobs, let alone any jobs that turn into permanent positions.
If there are all of these jobs available.....why do we have so many American's that cannot find a job.....ANY job?
I know of people that have signed up for "Manpower" etc......they don't get called for a lot of jobs, let alone any jobs that turn into permanent positions.
Good morning,
This is easily answered, since I dealt with this exact issue in a past job.
The employers/nonprofits/hospitals/govt agencies where we placed our clients in the Hurricane Katrina jobs program needed workers and had plenty of work to do, they just didn't have enough current funding to hire anyone. I worked for the government and we provided the funds and paid the employees directly every two weeks.
We also paid for their training within fields that were in-demand, like health care. We actually sent many single mothers through accelerated nursing programs as a CNA (4 weeks), LPN (1 yr), and RN (2 yr) free of charge. Some went through each program, and were off our jobs program in 4 weeks once they got the CNA license and later finished their LPN or RN while working for a health care provider.
In my proposed program, the money to pay employees comes from shifting existing welfare funds to jobs and would follow a similar path as what we did after Katrina. The jobs would be temporary, until they can either be hired on permanently in the current position, or have finished training for an in demand career. There are plenty of nursing jobs for women (or men too), and plenty of skilled blue collar jobs available like machinists, people just aren't training for them so the positions remain open. If government's going to be in the welfare business, they should at least help pay for the training in these in-demand fields.
I am pretty sure there is plenty of work around the country by agencies that don't have enough funding to hire people, the government just doesn't seem to be interested in providing direct jobs instead of sending people welfare and unemployment checks. They should at least use the existing welfare / unemployment funds to hire people part time and give them the rest of the day to search for work / train for a new career.
Last edited by Freedom123; 06-15-2011 at 07:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
