Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(14 News Evansville)   Can't pay child support to your four children? That's no unprotected sex for you for the duration of your probation.... Unless you can come up with $100,000 in overdue support   (14news.com) divider line 139
    More: Interesting, child support, merits of the case, unprotected sex, Elyria, probation, Ohio Courts, Owensboro  
•       •       •

5321 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 7:05 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 11:02:08 AM  
Hmm, just out of curiosity.. For those of us paying child support, what is it costing you?

I pay $1000 a month for 3

/had vacectomy after the 3rd
 
2014-05-15 11:04:55 AM  

hej: Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.

The whore is a "he" in this case.


We had a guy in our old neighborhood who, no shiat, 9 kids with 7 different moms. He didn't want to get fixed for whatever reason, as if having 9 kids isn't enough. Funny thing: You know the one thing those women had in common, other than spawning another brat from him he'd never be able to realistically support? (FYI, he did pay child support, but 9 kids means it was diddly squat for the last ones especially as he was working poor)

All of the women we met (5 out of the 7, never met the ex-wife or the first gal he knocked up) admitted they didn't even try to not get pregnant. They just let it happen. Heaven knows why, because all the guy does is run around from kid to kid, babysitting and working. I can't even say where he found the time to stick it in #7 girl, but she had to know (actually starting with #4 should have seen) he had nothing. He had an old car that was falling apart. Small rented house. Everything he owned was bodged together junk. The guy didn't have anything, except obligations to kids with other women. Yet #7 popped out the last two kids I knew of, admitting she actively tried to get pregnant.

Where's the logic in that? She wasn't an 'ugly girl' by any means. Why did she (intentionally!) have kids (that she could never support alone, gas station clerk) with a guy that could never come close to supporting them even if she moved in? Where's responsibility in cases like that?
 
2014-05-15 11:09:57 AM  

Dirty J1: For a court to have to order this lowlife deadbeat not to have any more kids is just sad. Not sure how the guy in question feels about it but I surely hope having more kids wasnt on his to do list to begin with. The fact that he's paying child support, or supposed to be anyway, for his existing kids just shows he's not in the picture to raise them anyway so apparently he doesn't want them in the first place. Here's an easy way to get through these typed of issues: poor? Dont have kids. Not until you become not poor. Simple. Rather than wasting your early years raising kids you could be getting educated, trained, experienced, and ultimately become successful in a field that will pay you very well. Then maybe have kids. That's what smart people do.


Ya because no poor people ever loved their kids or raised them well. Because poverty makes you a bad person.

Because nobody with the means to care for their kids has ever been a destructive person towards them.

There is a difference between being poor and being a lousy parent.
 
2014-05-15 11:10:17 AM  

Delta1212: doglover: The better way to punish guys who father too many kids or women who carry too many babies to term is to force them to work in education.

They can take care of their kids or take care of everyone's kids.

If having kids was free, it would just encourage "them" to reproduce and good, law-abiding w- working people would have to pick up the tab.


Not to mention, sending them to work in education will ensure a downward slope.  This plan is great all around.
 
2014-05-15 11:14:34 AM  

Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.


As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:00 AM  

Arcturus72: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

In my last job, I was one of 2 white guys on the job while all the others were black or hispanic... Almost all of them who were married also had a girlfriend on the side... This subject came up more than once. Since I had my vasectomy since '98, I was talking to them about it... Almost without fail, all of them were convinced that "You get cut, your shiat don't work no more"... I told them they should say that around Mrs Arcturus for her answer on that one, but still, no takers...

I even told them, since several of them were on the hook for child support, "If you get it done, no more worries about child support with that girlfriend on the side"... Nope, no takers...

The place was very interesting to work at sometimes... One guy's girlfriend was driving out at the same time his wife was driving in, with both of them bringing him lunch... And yes, I'm glad I no longer work there...

Oh, and for a slightly better link, with photos:  http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/05/13/appeals-court%E2%80%88h e -cant-children-pays-child-support/


I worked with a guy that had 2-3 girlfriends at any given time, none of which he lived with. The odd thing was that they knew he was a 'serial cheater' but still went to bed with him. He wasn't an idiot though, he had his two kids and got cut.

One thing, he never told the women he was cut, ever. I never understood why, until he had a couple of fake pregnancy scares. Well, the pregnancies may, or may not, have been fake. He wasn't the guy on the hook for child support if they were real. He explained his not telling them this way: (paraphrased a bit) 'Let women think you can give them a baby and they're happy. They know you're fixed and their desire to bed you drops quickly. I don't have to understand it - I just call it biology and stopped trying to figure it out.'
 
2014-05-15 11:33:03 AM  

JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.


This actually is a very plausible suggestion. Add in a fast track for SmartRisug (or similar) on the male side and I think we'd have a complete program. People could still have fun (oh, how the fundies would hate the poor people having fun), possibly pull themselves out of their circumstances with education / employment, and maybe we could help men and women (by their own choice) improve their circumstances. Then they could go make more kids when they can support them, if they so choose.

I think the guys (after they have their first spawn that ends up on public assistance) having the same option would help as well. Assuming we can get SmartRisug (or similar) proven safe, effective, and reversible.

+1 Intarwebs and Real-life problem solving
 
2014-05-15 11:44:10 AM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Dirty J1: For a court to have to order this lowlife deadbeat not to have any more kids is just sad. Not sure how the guy in question feels about it but I surely hope having more kids wasnt on his to do list to begin with. The fact that he's paying child support, or supposed to be anyway, for his existing kids just shows he's not in the picture to raise them anyway so apparently he doesn't want them in the first place. Here's an easy way to get through these typed of issues: poor? Dont have kids. Not until you become not poor. Simple. Rather than wasting your early years raising kids you could be getting educated, trained, experienced, and ultimately become successful in a field that will pay you very well. Then maybe have kids. That's what smart people do.

Ya because no poor people ever loved their kids or raised them well. Because poverty makes you a bad person.

Because nobody with the means to care for their kids has ever been a destructive person towards them.

There is a difference between being poor and being a lousy parent.


This is true, but to have kids it's really ideal to want them to begin with, and to be financially secure enough to raise them, or pay the child support at least. I grew up poor myself with a deadbeat dad whom I've never met. He had issues with paying child support as well. I know my mom loved me and all but growing up was rough. Being in that situation I've consciously made the decision to hold off on having kids until I'm financially secure. And of course i would never be a deadbeat cock suck like my father. And so far without kids, I've been able to devote literally all my time into studying and schooling and job training. I'm about to graduate college soon as well. An my wife, since she feels the same and doesn't have to raise kids, is in a stable career herself while I make my share and work my way up to a well paying career myself. Then she will be able to quit and spen time raising a child while i work and we can provide a decent life for our potential children. I have no idea why people these days are in such a hurry to have children.
 
2014-05-15 11:44:27 AM  

rolladuck: Creoena: And how exactly will they enforce this?

TFA says the order was that he couldn't have more children.  Since legally in Ohio, an unmarried man is only a father if a woman claims him to be a father, he can still knock someone up and get her to not declare a father, or only sleep with married women (married men are presumed to be the father if their wife has a baby unless she and another man both agree otherwise.)

The ruling also means that if he breaks the condom, the court is basically requiring him to seek morning-after treatment.  It also means that the court has pre-emptively determined that no woman is allowed to procreate with him.  I wonder how that would be accepted by the women's reproductive rights lobby.  Don't they have the right to knowingly make bad, even devastating decisions?


I think it is an overstep - what might work is for dead-beat parents (either gender) of the can't-help-my-reproducing-self type to carry mandatory insurance.....if you can't afford the ones you have and are in arrears, you will take out a paternity/maternity insurance policy that will accrue value - unplanned babby? increased premiums based on pay-out of support funds - no unplanned babby? increased value to help you out of the debt you are in for non-support.

might help with family court arguments about how that biatch isn't getting any money to buy shiat for herself because, hey? I bought a box of diapers just last christmas or, inversely, how he got her pregnant by some evil magic and he isn't seeing the babby until he writes a check equal to his quarterly salary.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:49 AM  

pgh9fan: Interesting. I wonder how the "Christian Conservatives" will take this. If he does get a woman pregnant would the court force an abortion on her?


Hopefully they just throw him in jail where he can get his very own vasectomy, on the taxpayer's dime.

/just like his children
 
2014-05-15 11:47:54 AM  

BizarreMan: his right to reproduce


If you've already done so four separate times, and each time refuse to take care of your offspring, you're done. You've had your chance, you've exercised your right. Hope you had fun, the ride's over now.
 
2014-05-15 11:50:04 AM  

inglixthemad: Fafai: I alone am best: PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...

I dont understand why he has to pay for them at all. The woman had the choice not to have them.

"It's biology."

/court-ordered biology

Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.

When child support came into being it was because the poor, feckless, helpless wimmin folk were basically chattel. They could never be expected to obtain an education or gainful employment to raise children. Prior to this, children had gone to the person with resources (usually the man) but at this point (with factory jobs becoming more common) women were staying home while the men wen to the factories. Rather than expect the man to pay for child care (day care didn't exist in the same sense, obviously) they (the patriarchy) declared mothers the natural parent and started giving them custody. Since those useless wimmins couldn't get real work, men were ordered to pay money for their care. Go back and look up Staunton in 1808 for the first of a series of decisions affirming this ideal.

Women were effectively hindered (to put it politely) in education and employment. The chances of them being able to effectively provide for their own children was remote. The same patriarchy that ruled them money, also ruled they stay at home, by fiat in both cases. Child support had nothing to do with the best interest of the child, it was in the best interest in the patriarchy to keep women at home and out of the workplace.

The effects linger to this day with women being awarded primary (or sole) custody even though the 'law' says otherwise.

Biology used to be a valid excuse. The 'safest' (not that it's 100% safe, just safer) way for a women to get a fetus out of her body was birth. Abortifacents were hit or miss, and quite oft ...


The problem is thanks to the christian conservative movement, getting government resources to pay for BC and abortions is political hot potato.

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, paying $50+ a month for BC pills or $500 for an early-term abortions is extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Hell, there are states in the US that have exactly 1 abortion clinic for the whole state! (North Dakota and Mississippi)

Ever wonder why other first world nations DON'T have the crime problem we have? Yeah, we don't have a bunch of kids nobody wants running around.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:56 AM  

MrBallou: TuteTibiImperes: Well, it's not like he's doing much to support the kids he already has, so it likely wouldn't change anything for his new baby-mama whether he was in or out of jail.

True. Best preventative would be to tattoo on his forehead, "Don't get knocked up by this deadbeat."


It worked in The Scarlet Letter.

The modern-day practice of forcing sex offenders to go around telling people that they're sex offenders isn't that far off.
 
2014-05-15 11:57:11 AM  

inglixthemad: hej: Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.

The whore is a "he" in this case.

We had a guy in our old neighborhood who, no shiat, 9 kids with 7 different moms. He didn't want to get fixed for whatever reason, as if having 9 kids isn't enough. Funny thing: You know the one thing those women had in common, other than spawning another brat from him he'd never be able to realistically support? (FYI, he did pay child support, but 9 kids means it was diddly squat for the last ones especially as he was working poor)

All of the women we met (5 out of the 7, never met the ex-wife or the first gal he knocked up) admitted they didn't even try to not get pregnant. They just let it happen. Heaven knows why, because all the guy does is run around from kid to kid, babysitting and working. I can't even say where he found the time to stick it in #7 girl, but she had to know (actually starting with #4 should have seen) he had nothing. He had an old car that was falling apart. Small rented house. Everything he owned was bodged together junk. The guy didn't have anything, except obligations to kids with other women. Yet #7 popped out the last two kids I knew of, admitting she actively tried to get pregnant.

Where's the logic in that? She wasn't an 'ugly girl' by any means. Why did she (intentionally!) have kids (that she could never support alone, gas station clerk) with a guy that could never come close to supporting them even if she moved in? Where's responsibility in cases like that?


I work with the garnishment dept a lot at my job and some of the child support claims from states they get are amazing. The most infamous one is a guy that has had 6 or 7 kids IIRC and they are from different women and the last 3 were all born within a month of each other. There was also a legal incident when a bunch of the ladies confronted him and each other.
 
2014-05-15 12:02:19 PM  

shortymac: The problem is thanks to the christian conservative movement, getting government resources to pay for BC and abortions is political hot potato.

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, paying $50+ a month for BC pills or $500 for an early-term abortions is extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Hell, there are states in the US that have exactly 1 abortion clinic for the whole state! (North Dakota and Mississippi)

Ever wonder why other first world nations DON'T have the crime problem we have? Yeah, we don't have a bunch of kids nobody wants running around.


$50? My old neighbor's kid pays less than $10 (as of last June) according her at Planned Parenthood. My kids, because they had an education, paid ~$30-60 with insurance, but that's not at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood may be considered evil by fundies, but I consider them a valuable resource for men and women. Heck, my Polish friend got her non-hormonal IUD for cheap there because she fell below a certain income level.

I do agree fundies ruin shiat. Then again, a lot of guys don't give a fark because it isn't 'good for the goose, good for the gander' in family court. So fundies can attract them by saying they'll removed female privilege. This goes for double in issues involving child custody.
 
2014-05-15 12:13:54 PM  
i26.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-15 12:16:29 PM  
So the women are going to be prevented from having more babies they can't support, too, right?  I mean, isn't that the point?
 
2014-05-15 12:30:57 PM  
Good luck enforcing that.
 
2014-05-15 12:57:46 PM  

inglixthemad: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

This actually is a very plausible suggestion. Add in a fast track for SmartRisug (or similar) on the male side and I think we'd have a complete program. People could still have fun (oh, how the fundies would hate the poor people having fun), possibly pull themselves out of their circumstances with education / employment, and maybe we could help men and women (by their own choice) improve their circumstances. Then they could go make more kids when they can support them, if they so choose.

I think the guys (af ...


That is an excellent idea.
 
2014-05-15 01:05:30 PM  

rolladuck: The ruling also means that if he breaks the condom, the court is basically requiring him to seek morning-after treatment.  It also means that the court has pre-emptively determined that no woman is allowed to procreate with him.  I wonder how that would be accepted by the women's reproductive rights lobby.  Don't they have the right to knowingly make bad, even devastating decisions?


i don't think that women's reproductive rights extend to getting the sperm of whoever they desire.  Do you?  Do I have a legal right to your sperm if I want it, even if you don't care to give it?
 
2014-05-15 01:10:49 PM  

rolladuck: abhorrent1: Bring back forced sterilization

Just license procreation.  If you have a child without a license, it becomes a ward of the state.  Or tossed of the side of the mountain like the Spartans did.


Larry Niven had the idea of a Fertility Board and Birthright Lottery back in 1970 (or maybe earlier, I'm not sure which was the first story that included either).  The roots of China's rules about population control go back to 1955 or so.
 
2014-05-15 01:34:15 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 01:41:29 PM  
Honest baby, it has got to be oral. Court orders.

//I am going to try this one tonight
 
2014-05-15 02:04:46 PM  

ciberido: rolladuck: The ruling also means that if he breaks the condom, the court is basically requiring him to seek morning-after treatment.  It also means that the court has pre-emptively determined that no woman is allowed to procreate with him.  I wonder how that would be accepted by the women's reproductive rights lobby.  Don't they have the right to knowingly make bad, even devastating decisions?

i don't think that women's reproductive rights extend to getting the sperm of whoever they desire.  Do you?   Do I have a legal right to your sperm if I want it, even if you don't care to give it?


Umm if you want it, I throw my trash out on Fridays. It should be full of batch rags, so have at it, becuase once its in the trash its fair game
 
2014-05-15 02:33:14 PM  

shortymac: Mississippi


Missiissippi has over 100 locations with family planning services and offers reduced or free BC based on income.   While I agree they should have more chop shops, they should also be a little better at BC.
 
2014-05-15 02:54:20 PM  

inglixthemad: Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.


Wrong.  It's based on the fact that we now have the technology to prove paternity and the will to collect child support.  This is a very recent phenomenon.  It wasn't until the 1980s when courts started to get serious about collecting child support payments.  Prior to that the risk of pregnancy fell almost exclusively on women.  A few well-to-do men may have paid hush money support, but mostly women suffered the costs an unwanted pregnancy while men got off scot free.

The widespread notion that sex is risky for men is brand new.  When I was young men joked about not knowing how many children they may have fathered.
 
2014-05-15 03:32:43 PM  

Graffito: but mostly women suffered the costs an unwanted pregnancy while men got off scot free.


That's in the past, and inglix may be wrong about that, but today would you agree that these one-sided pregnancy risks should rightfully be the cost of having 100% reproductive rights? What you call a man "getting off scot free" I call him getting his fair return on his 0% involvement in the decision whether to proceed with a pregnancy. And so far as the sex that resulted in pregnancy--excluding those cases of rape, which I agree the rapist should have to pay for her decision--each party has an equal culpability in the conception, so any "keep it in your pants" arguments intended for one side are cancelled out by the other side's involvement.

Seeing as how both people got together and created a growing cluster of cells, and only one of them can choose whether that infection of cells will become a separate life form, on what basis do you think the other person should take any responsibility for that decision to create life? Or do you think that?
 
2014-05-15 03:39:43 PM  

JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.


That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.
 
2014-05-15 04:55:14 PM  

IRQ12: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.


It's because of the christian dominionist movement mixed with the racists elements of the conservative movement and created a bizarre hydra of an anti-BC and abortion movement.

See, in their warped minds "welfare queens" (brown people) wouldn't use these services anyway because they want more welfare money, only young white college co-eds need BC and abortions in their minds. This terrifies them because they fear white people will lose their majority status, so they want to ban these things thinking the co-eds will give up said babies for adoption.

Don't believe me? Pat Buchanan wrote a book about it called "Death of the West".
 
2014-05-15 05:16:14 PM  

inglixthemad: shortymac: The problem is thanks to the christian conservative movement, getting government resources to pay for BC and abortions is political hot potato.

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, paying $50+ a month for BC pills or $500 for an early-term abortions is extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Hell, there are states in the US that have exactly 1 abortion clinic for the whole state! (North Dakota and Mississippi)

Ever wonder why other first world nations DON'T have the crime problem we have? Yeah, we don't have a bunch of kids nobody wants running around.

$50? My old neighbor's kid pays less than $10 (as of last June) according her at Planned Parenthood. My kids, because they had an education, paid ~$30-60 with insurance, but that's not at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood may be considered evil by fundies, but I consider them a valuable resource for men and women. Heck, my Polish friend got her non-hormonal IUD for cheap there because she fell below a certain income level.

I do agree fundies ruin shiat. Then again, a lot of guys don't give a fark because it isn't 'good for the goose, good for the gander' in family court. So fundies can attract them by saying they'll removed female privilege. This goes for double in issues involving child custody.


Your friends probably all have cars and you probably don't live in the middle of bumfark rural no-where where the local pharmacist refuses to stock Plan B because republican Jesus.

The problem is the majority of impoverished people live in rural areas where access to public transit is non-existent, if your crappy car goes you're screwed. Don't forget fundies guilt-tripping the local community as well.

I'd like to think that the fundy movement is in it's deaththroes, but as long as older boomers are around screwing things up I doubt it'll be soon.
 
2014-05-15 05:57:04 PM  

Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.


Sounds good to me. It's the whore's fault and he should be sterilized.
 
2014-05-15 07:15:54 PM  

Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.


I keep hearing about how its her body. She should take care of it eh?
 
2014-05-15 09:19:19 PM  

inglixthemad: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

This actually is a very plausible suggestion. Add in a fast track for SmartRisug (or similar) on the male side and I think we'd have a complete program. People could still have fun (oh, how the fundies would hate the poor people having fun), possibly pull themselves out of their circumstances with education / employment, and maybe we could help men and women (by their own choice) improve their circumstances. Then they could go make more kids when they can support them, if they so choose.

I think the guys (af ...


Except that then you'd be "encouraging extra-marital sex" and "paying for things with our tax dollars that are against our fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity", so you'll never get it through. I mean, they're trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and refuse to pay for birth control for women who DO take it voluntarily (and many versions of the Pill only run about $40/mo even without insurance). So... while I fully agree in principle - except that I find most of the long-term, reversible forms of birth control for women have major drawbacks*, which is a technical issue rather than a moral one - good luck getting that past the conservatives.

*I use an extended-cycle pill, but only go two months because I get spotting if I try to go the full three months. Same thing if I have to take antibiotics during the second month, even - they can weaken the effect of hormonal birth control significantly. So a longer term hormonal method would likely mean half-having my period (and possibly a mild case of PMS, too) the ENTIRE time I was on it. and that problem occurs badly enough to discontinue even the three-month pill in about 10% of women or so, which means it would likely affect even more on longer-term methods. NOPE. Non-hormonal methods are not that simple to do or reverse, compared to a vasectomy... and they don't help with PMS/PMDD. And then there's all the cases of IUDs perforating the uterus, which HELL NOPE.
 
2014-05-16 11:50:40 AM  

Graffito: inglixthemad: Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.

Wrong.  It's based on the fact that we now have the technology to prove paternity and the will to collect child support.  This is a very recent phenomenon.  It wasn't until the 1980s when courts started to get serious about collecting child support payments.  Prior to that the risk of pregnancy fell almost exclusively on women.  A few well-to-do men may have paid hush money support, but mostly women suffered the costs an unwanted pregnancy while men got off scot free.

The widespread notion that sex is risky for men is brand new.  When I was young men joked about not knowing how many children they may have fathered.


No, you're not reading the case law. This is not uncommon. Stanton set the first standard for child support in 1808, well before genetic testing was available. I suggest you read Hansen's summaries (if you're not a lawyer) in the Yale Law Journal. I also suggest reading the actual (the regular English, not lawyerese portion) opinion itself, it's quite a startling view of women to a modern (late 20th or 21st century) male. Basically starting there, women were considered helpless chattel, unable to care for themselves or their children, without the resources only a man could provide. Child support exists solely because of the early 19th view that only a man could provide for children. Funny how feminists don't dispute that particular bit of case law.

Sex has always been risky for men and women. For men, because unless you were with the woman 24/7 until she conceived you were never sure if the child was your own. For women, because unless there was a marriage certificate, it was near impossible to file a claim for paternity. That's why some jurisdictions still have laws on the books that say, it doesn't matter if you are the biological daddy or not, if you were married when the kid was born you're stuck supporting them financially.
 
2014-05-16 12:07:52 PM  

shortymac: Your friends probably all have cars and you probably don't live in the middle of bumfark rural no-where where the local pharmacist refuses to stock Plan B because republican Jesus.


Nope, I live in a civilized area. Yes, I have a car, and guess what: I didn't vote for (or hire) the Republican Jeebus followers in bumfark nowhere.

The problem is the majority of impoverished people live in rural areas where access to public transit is non-existent, if your crappy car goes you're screwed. Don't forget fundies guilt-tripping the local community as well.

I guess they'd better start voting for people that don't support fundy crap then. They might have to give up some privilege to get others on their side, but it would probably be worth it in the long run.

I'd like to think that the fundy movement is in it's deaththroes, but as long as older boomers are around screwing things up I doubt it'll be soon.

Oh, there's new fundy morons everyday. People in bumfark nowhere keep voting for them and I can't fix that. Maybe if the privilege starts to vanish, fundy support will vanish. Right now, guys don't really give a fark about women's issues because it's all that's been harped on for decades now, women have turned it into a zero sum game, while they simultaneously harp about 'male privilege' ad nauseam. For guys, that's reason enough not to even listen anymore.

The irony? These are the guys that were raised in a society that said women are equals. They go: 'Fine, you're equal. Now STFU, get a job, and stop whining.'
 
2014-05-16 12:20:43 PM  

shortymac: IRQ12: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.

It's because of the christian dominionist movement mixed with the racists elements of the conservative movement and created a bizarre hydra of an anti-BC and abortion movement.

See, in their warped minds "welfare queens" (brown people) wouldn't use these services anyway because they want ...


BlackGenocide.org

"Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?"
 
2014-05-16 12:24:10 PM  

ornithopter: Except that then you'd be "encouraging extra-marital sex" and "paying for things with our tax dollars that are against our fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity", so you'll never get it through. I mean, they're trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and refuse to pay for birth control for women who DO take it voluntarily (and many versions of the Pill only run about $40/mo even without insurance). So... while I fully agree in principle - except that I find most of the long-term, reversible forms of birth control for women have major drawbacks*, which is a technical issue rather than a moral one - good luck getting that past the conservatives.


Well, yeah, and feminists whine about fundy morons. So get people to vote them out. Use the wallet argument against them. People hate paying taxes more than they love fundy bullshiat in many cases. Just because fundy morons hate sex, you give single men and women enough of a nudge, and they'd vote them out.

Also, it depends on the person. I'd rather limit it to implantable bc because it doesn't need to be remembered, it's just there. I'd like a version for the guys too, I used SmartRisug as the example, so both can be covered.  As far as IUD's, my friend weighed the pros and cons. She decided the risks of hormonal vs non-hormonal were tilted (in her view) toward non-hormonal and chose an IUD. This will be a somewhat (to say the least) personal choice for a someone to make. Also, not everyone is the same, and that means the doctors need leeway to give the person what works best for them.

*I use an extended-cycle pill, but only go two months because I get spotting if I try to go the full three months. Same thing if I have to take antibiotics during the second month, even - they can weaken the effect of hormonal birth control significantly. So a longer term hormonal method would likely mean half-having my period (and possibly a mild case of PMS, too) the ENTIRE time I was on it. and that problem occurs badly enough to discontinue even the three-month pill in about 10% of women or so, which means it would likely affect even more on longer-term methods. NOPE. Non-hormonal methods are not that simple to do or reverse, compared to a vasectomy... and they don't help with PMS/PMDD. And then there's all the cases of IUDs perforating the uterus, which HELL NOPE.

The first one, well that's well known. That does vary by the type exactly, but yes, your doctor / pharmacist should be telling you that up front.

The second and third just show you wouldn't willingly join the program. No harm, no foul. People don't have to join, but they wouldn't get the benefits of the program if they don't. Remember, his idea is completely voluntary. That's why it would stand a chance in a court challenge, because it's an 'opt in' program.
 
2014-05-16 01:36:57 PM  

inglixthemad: Graffito: inglixthemad: Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.

Wrong.  It's based on the fact that we now have the technology to prove paternity and the will to collect child support.  This is a very recent phenomenon.  It wasn't until the 1980s when courts started to get serious about collecting child support payments.  Prior to that the risk of pregnancy fell almost exclusively on women.  A few well-to-do men may have paid hush money support, but mostly women suffered the costs an unwanted pregnancy while men got off scot free.

The widespread notion that sex is risky for men is brand new.  When I was young men joked about not knowing how many children they may have fathered.

No, you're not reading the case law. This is not uncommon. Stanton set the first standard for child support in 1808, well before genetic testing was available. I suggest you read Hansen's summaries (if you're not a lawyer) in the Yale Law Journal. I also suggest reading the actual (the regular English, not lawyerese portion) opinion itself, it's quite a startling view of women to a modern (late 20th or 21st century) male. Basically starting there, women were considered helpless chattel, unable to care for themselves or their children, without the resources only a man could provide. Child support exists solely because of the early 19th view that only a man could provide for children. Funny how feminists don't dispute that particular bit of case law.

Sex has always been risky for men and women. For men, because unless you were with the woman 24/7 until she conceived you were never sure if the child was your own. For women, because unless there was a marriage certificate, it was near impossible to file a claim for paternity. That's why some jurisdictions still have laws on the books that say, it doesn't matter if you are the biological daddy or not, if you were married when the kid was born you're stuck supporting them financially.


This is true, when my great-great-grandfather died my great-great-grandmother lost custody of my great-grandmother because she didn't re-marry right away and she had no income.

My great-grandmother was sent to her paternal grandparents and never saw her mother again.

This was law in Pennsylvania circa 1880.
 
2014-05-16 01:44:45 PM  

hasty ambush: shortymac: IRQ12: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.

It's because of the christian dominionist movement mixed with the racists elements of the conservative movement and created a bizarre hydra of an anti-BC and abortion movement.

See, in their warped minds "welfare queens" (brown people) wouldn't use these services anyway becaus ...


I know the reality is that brown people are more likely to use abortion services, but because of the "welfare queen" myth people assume it's all white co-eds.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report