Texas looking to reinstate funding for planned parenthood

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
As far as I am concerned it isn't a human being until it viable outside the mothers uterus, until then its the mothers body and her decision.
This planned parenthood issue, its just another scapegoat for mothers who do not want to provide for their children. And its BS.
Exactly. Abortion is just a way for women (but not men) to escape responsibility. It has nothing to do with it "being the woman's body". Otherwise there would be no need to qualify it with until it reaches technical viability, the woman's body does not stop being her's when the fetus reaches a certain age. It all has to do with letting women escape responsibility, and liberals think that 25 weeks is enough for women to decide, and they don't want to look like immoral baby killers so it is find to restrict a woman's choices about her body at that point.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Mom pops a kid out, then she says I need food stamps, welfare, free health care,,,. No, what you need is to be held to the same level of responsibility as the father. If the father has to get a job, then so should the mother.
The problem is that day care is about $10,000 per year, so going to work doesn't actually make any money if the woman is a low skill worker. The government's idea is that she should just be unemployed and be a perfect role model for the kid (never having a job and being fed by food stamps). I think a better solution would be to have completely 100% free day care for everyone, and thats it. You want food? Get a job. You need to pay rent? Get a job. The kid should look at their mother and see a hard working person with a full time job. I think a lot of ghetto culture and relying on welfare is a direct result of seeing parents live like that. Mom has no job and relies on welfare, so that's the standard; I'll do that too when I grow up!
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
The problem is that day care is about $10,000 per year, so going to work doesn't actually make any money if the woman is a low skill worker.
Sounds to me like being a low skill single mother is incompatible with reality.

The government's idea is that she should just be unemployed and be a perfect role model for the kid (never having a job and being fed by food stamps). I think a better solution would be to have completely 100% free day care for everyone, and thats it. You want food? Get a job. You need to pay rent? Get a job. The kid should look at their mother and see a hard working person with a full time job. I think a lot of ghetto culture and relying on welfare is a direct result of seeing parents live like that. Mom has no job and relies on welfare, so that's the standard; I'll do that too when I grow up!
So your solution to government welfare is essentially make government welfare for everyone? :rolleyes:
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
The problem is that day care is about $10,000 per year,
Why should the state be burdened with providing anything? Take responsibility for your actions.

The problem is, the state provides a buffer between actions and responsibility.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
Why should the state be burdened with providing anything? Take responsibility for your actions.

The problem is, the state provides a buffer between actions and responsibility.

Says the guy with kids on welfare.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
My view is this (and it is the most fair I can come up with that also takes reality into account):

If father and mother both do not want a baby, no baby is born and no child support paid (due to there being no child).
If father and mother both want the baby, the baby is born and child support is paid.
If the mother does not want the baby, but the father does, no baby is born and no child support paid. This is to give the woman the ability to "control her own body".
If the mother wants the baby, but the father does not, the baby is born but no child support is paid. This is to give the woman the ability to "control her own body" and also give the man the ability to "control his own body" as well.

Fair.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Its ok.

The ex can not leech off of me forever. Just 14 more months of freeloading and her meal ticket will come to an end.
I'm trying to follow your take on this issue and I'm a bit confused. Are you speaking to Alimony here or Child Support... which of course is for the child(ren) and not the woman leeching anything from you.

On another item...

I'm not sure if you live in Texas or not. Assuming you do, are there no provisions for an OSC (order to show cause) where by a person can request the court to modify an alimony and/or child support order due to a change in financial condition of the payer?


And, would you agree with me that the custodial parent actually contributes much more to the child than the one paying child support? (consider the value of time and assume the custodial parent functions as both mom and dad in a nurturing manner)
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
And, would you agree with me that the custodial parent actually contributes much more to the child than the one paying child support? (consider the value of time and assume the custodial parent functions as both mom and dad in a nurturing manner)
Define "raising". Living in the same house with someone does not mean you contribute to their upbringing.

The children were living with her, but not any more. The youngest and last one is living with me.

The exwife has not provided health coverage a single time, nor has she worked in the past decade.

If that was me refusing to work, I would be under the jail.
I am going to go with a big NO on that one.

But, would you agree that the custodial parent actually benefits much more from having the child than the one paying child support? (consider the value of spending time with the child and getting to more directly see it grow up)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I am going to go with a big NO on that one.

But, would you agree that the custodial parent actually benefits much more from having the child than the one paying child support? (consider the value of spending time with the child and getting to more directly see it grow up)
I said...

And, would you agree with me that the custodial parent actually contributes much more to the child than the one paying child support? (consider the value of time and assume the custodial parent functions as both mom and dad in a nurturing manner)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY