next step

"Tracy" wrote in

I didn't write the statement you commented on. Aside from that small
fact,
I would like to ask this question of you. Do you feel parents have a
moral
obligation to support their children or should other people be supporting
them?

Here is where people get confused about moral issues and the law, we can't
force our own morals on others in a free society.
The only reason any individual should be locked up is when they are a
physical danger to society.

You can't force parenthood on people that don't want to be parents or abuse
the power of the penal system to collect money.

The government is treading on very dangerous ground here where personal
rights of it's citizens are being dismissed over money issues. We seem to
have billions of dollars to help people in other countries, but where is
that same generosity when it comes to our own citizens? We have tried to
legislate the drinking & driving problem with more heavy penalties, but it
has had little effect on the real problem of alcoholism. It is shallow
thinking to try solve all age old problems with excessive force.
Education and changing of attitudes is the only way to solve most of
society's problems!

This is a poverty issue and not a criminal issue!

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"G" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tracy" wrote in
If the law say you still must provide, you should.

There were once laws banning the sale of Alcohol and also laws that said
your hand should be cut off for Stealing a loaf of bread.

What makes anyone think that trying to legislate the poverty problem
will
be
any different?

I didn't write the statement you commented on. Aside from that small
fact,
I would like to ask this question of you. Do you feel parents have a
moral
obligation to support their children or should other people be supporting
them? I'm not defending the original statement, I'm just curious.

That's an interesting question. Unfortunately the decisions on who should
support children have already been made, not by parents, but by government
intervention in the family. Therefore, it doesn't matter what parents
actually believe is the moral thing to do for them or society.

Terri Shiavo's parents may have felt a moral obligation to support their
child, but the laws prevented them from acting. An NCP may not feel a moral
obligation to support a child he was tricked into fathering, but the laws
will force them to act.

Similarly, a CP may chose not to support their child and the government will
provide public assistance to accommodate her decision. But if a father
chooses to not support his child, the government will force him to provide
support or face severe consequences.

"G" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in

I didn't write the statement you commented on. Aside from that small
fact,
I would like to ask this question of you. Do you feel parents have a
moral
obligation to support their children or should other people be
supporting
them?

Here is where people get confused about moral issues and the law, we can't
force our own morals on others in a free society.

Did I say anything about forcing morals or confusing law with morals? No I
didn't.

The only reason any individual should be locked up is when they are a
physical danger to society.

Again - do you feel parents have a moral obligation to support their
children? Are children not part of society, and isn't it physically
dangerous to another individual to not provide for them? My question goes
far beyond child-support. Either parents should be expected to support
their children or they shouldn't. To me it is a matter of morals. I
personally don't care what the law states, because morally parents should be
providing for their children - and I strongly believe children are part of
society and it is a physical crime against a child to not provide for them.
Neglecting a child can lead to that child's death.

You can't force parenthood on people that don't want to be parents or
abuse
the power of the penal system to collect money.

The government is treading on very dangerous ground here where personal
rights of it's citizens are being dismissed over money issues. We seem to
have billions of dollars to help people in other countries, but where is
that same generosity when it comes to our own citizens? We have tried to
legislate the drinking & driving problem with more heavy penalties, but it
has had little effect on the real problem of alcoholism. It is shallow
thinking to try solve all age old problems with excessive force.
Education and changing of attitudes is the only way to solve most of
society's problems!

At least we agree that education and changing of attitudes will solve the
larger problem.. but you still didn't answer my question if you feel parents
have a moral obligation to support their children.


This is a poverty issue and not a criminal issue!

That has nothing to do with my question.


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"G" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tracy" wrote in
If the law say you still must provide, you should.

There were once laws banning the sale of Alcohol and also laws that
said
your hand should be cut off for Stealing a loaf of bread.

What makes anyone think that trying to legislate the poverty problem
will
be
any different?

I didn't write the statement you commented on. Aside from that small
fact,
I would like to ask this question of you. Do you feel parents have a
moral
obligation to support their children or should other people be
supporting
them? I'm not defending the original statement, I'm just curious.

That's an interesting question. Unfortunately the decisions on who should
support children have already been made, not by parents, but by government
intervention in the family. Therefore, it doesn't matter what parents
actually believe is the moral thing to do for them or society.

I disagree to a point that it doesn't matter what parents actually believe
is the moral thing. I strongly believe I have a moral obligation to my
step-children, and I do it out of love. Their mother doesn't pay
child-support, nor do I expect her to. I do at times complain about her in
this group, but that is primarily due to her lack of love & respect for her
children. The law would rather force her to pay child-support and give it
to us. We happen to feel it is not necessary and give her the money back.

So back to the original poster's story. He's in a similar situation as my
husband. A dad with custody and the children's mother is now working. When
I met my husband his ex just started working, but he did not go after her
for child-support. Instead what he really wanted her to do was be a mother
to the children. Being a parent to your child is not just providing
financial care, and I know you would agree with me on that. There are many
factors involved in being a parent and providing support. That support can
come from many different day-to-day actions. So when I read what I did from
the original poster I had to stop and wonder what he really wants and
expects of the children's mother. Is it revenge? Validation of what she
did to the kids and him? For her to be a mother to her daughters? Exactly
what is it.

I happen to put more weight in moral obligations than laws. When I seen G's
response I had to ask if he/she felt parents were morally obligated to
support their children. I feel there is a moral obligation to support your
children, and I don't necessarily agree that the law should force morals...


Terri Shiavo's parents may have felt a moral obligation to support their
child, but the laws prevented them from acting. An NCP may not feel a
moral
obligation to support a child he was tricked into fathering, but the laws
will force them to act.

Terri Shiavo's case is a very good classic example of morals versus "law".

I thought about the NCP who was tricked into fatherhood... but I couldn't
help but to think of the original poster, who is a father - just like my
husband. My husband's children were planned. My husband's ex, like the
original posters ex, was not tricked into motherhood. So I strongly believe
they have a moral obligation to support their children.


Similarly, a CP may chose not to support their child and the government
will
provide public assistance to accommodate her decision. But if a father
chooses to not support his child, the government will force him to provide
support or face severe consequences.

Oh - I agree with that... that is why I asked if G felt other people should
be supporting the children if the parents don't have a moral obligation to
support them. After all, someone has to be supporting the children
otherwise they would die by starvation! I strongly believe that if it is
"good" for one, then it is good for all parties. Therefore, if society
feels a father has an obligation to support their children (financially,
etc) than so should a mother. I don't feel my next door neighbor has any
obligation to support my children. Likewise if I decide to help support
someone else's children then it is my choice, but I should not be forced.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

"Tracy" wrote in message
...


Oh - I agree with that... that is why I asked if G felt other people
should
be supporting the children if the parents don't have a moral obligation to
support them. After all, someone has to be supporting the children
otherwise they would die by starvation! I strongly believe that if it is
"good" for one, then it is good for all parties. Therefore, if society
feels a father has an obligation to support their children (financially,
etc) than so should a mother. I don't feel my next door neighbor has any
obligation to support my children. Likewise if I decide to help support
someone else's children then it is my choice, but I should not be forced.

The problem we all face is the government gets involved as the middleman and
forces us to support our "neighbor's" children. The choice we have is to
pay for our own children's expenses on top of what we are forced to pay for
our neighbor's children.

A portion of income taxes and property taxes go to schools whether you have
children in school or not. Income tax gets diverted to welfare and other
child subsidies for the women who chose not to work. Income taxes go to pay
illegal immigrant medical expenses, welfare, education expenses, school
lunches, etc. Income taxes go to pay college costs, subsidize low income
grants, provide below market interest on student loans, and other direct
subsidies for the "needy."

When you stop and think about it, we all pay huge amounts of money to
support our "neighbor's" children. And it gets worse - Consider the plight
of tax payers in places like Vancouver, WA who pay income taxes to Oregon
without any representation and get virtually no services in return.

"Tracy" wrote in

Again - do you feel parents have a moral obligation to support their
children? Are children not part of society, and isn't it physically
dangerous to another individual to not provide for them?

This is America, nobody starves to death unless the court orders it!

While we're talking about morals in America, which morals do we choose to
jail people with?
Are any of us so morally correct that we can judge other people's morals?

How about if we start jailing people if they have an affair while married?
How about jailing people for aborting and killing live human beings?
How about jailing people for not working their full 8 hours?

Point is, we are all so morally corrupt, we wouldn't know where to start?

Get off of poor people's backs and start helping them.
It's much cheaper that way!!!!!