If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Letters to the Editor: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or not
Copyright 2005 Landmark Communications, Inc.
The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.) September 1, 2005 Thursday The Virginian-Pilot Edition SECTION: LOCAL, Pg. B10 LENGTH: 631 words HEADLINE: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or not BODY: These letters are in response to "State's 'deadbeat' ad persecutes low-income parents" (op-ed, Aug. 30) by Jeffrey Leving, a family law attorney, and Glenn Sacks, a columnist who writes on fathers' and men's issues. Let them work 2 or 3 jobs I have never been so angry reading the newspaper as I was regarding the op-ed commentary about the deadbeat parents ad. The pot of gold does exist; it's called, get more than one job if you have to. Getting tough on parents who fail to pay child support does have a pot of gold at the end. It's called making sure the kids get what they need, like food, clothing, a roof over their heads. Obviously the lawyer and columnist have no idea of what a struggling single parent is all about. I have worked two and three jobs at a time to try to keep food on the table for my three kids. They darn sure weren't $12- or $15-per-hour jobs either. The absent parent should do whatever it takes, if it means working at McDonald's at night and construction during the day. Hunt them down and make them pay. After all, the kids didn't ask to pay for being their child. Commentaries like this raise our state taxes due to single parents needing more assistance. And if they don't qualify, more kids are sent to bed hungry. Hazel Burns Virginia Beach Get the courts involved I have some working knowledge of the child-support-collection system in Virginia. I agree with the authors of the opinion piece that a large percentage of delinquent child-support evaders are of low-income status. However, that does not relieve them of the responsibility of supporting their children. If the person, male or female, cannot pay because of his or her situation, then the courts and the Division of Child Support Enforcement should be willing to reduce the amount of monthly support ordered. The courts and the child-support-collection agencies of this country should also be willing to work together and collect from out-of-state evaders. The problem of inability to pay child support must become a socially unacceptable condition. When the community begins to show its disapproval of those who routinely create life with no thought to how the child will be supported, then maybe collection can be ensured. The problem isn't just teen pregnancies; it's adults who behave as if the baby can take care of itself. The authors of the piece seem to forget that many absent parents don't pay anything for years and years. If one looks at some of the amounts owed by people appearing in the "Have you seen these parents?" ads, it appears that no attempt has been made to pay or keep up with obligations. Personally, if I could receive all my back support from the absent legal (as in married) father of my two college-age daughters, it would cover both of their college costs. Carol Evans Norfolk Misplaced sympathy As a divorced mother of two boys, I take great offense to the article that takes the state to task for publishing pictures shaming all those pitiful noncustodial parents who don't make enough to pay support. I've worked two and three jobs at a time to take care of my children. Why can't their father be expected to do the same? I worked these jobs while raising two children on my own, and he has no other responsibilities to keep him from working. Why can't he be held jointly responsible for the children he created? Why isn't his picture in the paper, too? Elizabeth Phillips Virginia Beach Cry me a river ... How sad that these poor low-income dads are being persecuted for not supporting their children! Boo-hoo. It breaks my heart. How could anyone uphold a low-life, good-for-nothing "sperm donor" (they don't merit the title dad or father) who won't even support their own children? Deborah Hall Chesapeake LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2005 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... [snip] The attitude is simply amazing in these women. To bad they haven't gotten off the couch and away from Oprah in 20 years to learn the truth of the matter. Witch hunters, the lot of them. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... [snip] The attitude is simply amazing in these women. To bad they haven't gotten off the couch and away from Oprah in 20 years to learn the truth of the matter. Witch hunters, the lot of them. I love the part about people who have children with no regard to whether they can support them or not. If you apply this kind of logic to all parents and not just NCP's a lot of welfare mothers should be thrown in jail as well. The arrogance of these people amazes me. Notice that they are all women. TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their actions? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only
persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their actions? " What about condoms? (97% effective YIKES) Or getting snipped (99.9% reliable) Perhaps we could agree to advocate for better male birth control? It stinks that we have so few options especially as birth control pills DO cause side effects occassionally charming things like blood clots in the lungs. With one well known alleged exception it TAKES 2 to make a baby. Last time I knew, with some limited exceptions caused by pure stupidity, pregnancy can only occur if the male ejaculates (into the vagina) and therefore has an orgasm, whereas the woman need feel nothing at all to get pregnant |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LLL wrote: "TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their actions? " What about condoms? (97% effective YIKES) Or getting snipped (99.9% reliable) When used correctly of course. 86% when not used correctly. Your statistic is correct if used correctly. I did use the correct use statistic for birth control. 95% with normal usage patterns is the rate for birth control. The 4.9% disparity, as opposed to the 11% disparity would lead one to believe that birth control is actually easier to use correctly. Norplant and Depo-Provera are 99.91% effective and 99.7% effective when used. (Apparently incorrect usage is not a problem here, because of the nature of use, i.e. you do or you don;t.) Withdrawal is the only method other than condoms and male sterlization (a medical procedure that is unattractive because it has to be reversed if you want to have children) are the only method available to men. That is 3 methods total. There are 4 different hormonal methods for women, 2 types of IUD's, 4 types of barrier devices (granted many an ineffective), and sterilization. For men there are 0 types of hormonal (the most attractive) methods, IUD's obviously do not apply, 1 type of barrier method (condoms), and withdrawal. Withdrawal is not really an effective method. The natural family planning methods are also ineffective and require a stable, ongoing relationship. Norplant is more effective than anything else. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html Perhaps we could agree to advocate for better male birth control? It stinks that we have so few options especially as birth control pills DO cause side effects occassionally charming things like blood clots in the lungs. Of course we could agree of that. The industry seems to think men would not take it. There would be a viable market in both the single guy (I don't wanna be a daddy now) market, and the married guy (tired of my wife's headaches) market. With one well known alleged exception it TAKES 2 to make a baby. Yes it does, but it only takes one to prevent making a baby. Women have more, and better, options. There are much more than the one alleged exception that you refer to, sperm banks allow unilateral decisions by the woman. Last time I knew, with some limited exceptions caused by pure stupidity, pregnancy can only occur if the male ejaculates (into the vagina) and therefore has an orgasm, whereas the woman need feel nothing at all to get pregnant I am sure she would feel something, like maybe the penis inside of her. Actually, a man need not ejaculate to execrete sperm, although ejaculation obviously increases the chance of pregnancy. I don't think anyone, male or female, cares if they "got off" when they find out about an unwanted pregnancy. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
There's one thing that jumps out of these letters supporting the
relentless hounding of "parents" who owe what is laughingly called child support. They are all women. So-called child support is money that men are supposed to pay women. It's one of the clearest examples there is of the sexist nature of this system. P.S. Is Virginia Beach a woman too? She sounds like one. wrote in message oups.com... Copyright 2005 Landmark Communications, Inc. The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.) September 1, 2005 Thursday The Virginian-Pilot Edition SECTION: LOCAL, Pg. B10 LENGTH: 631 words HEADLINE: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or not BODY: These letters are in response to "State's 'deadbeat' ad persecutes low-income parents" (op-ed, Aug. 30) by Jeffrey Leving, a family law attorney, and Glenn Sacks, a columnist who writes on fathers' and men's issues. Let them work 2 or 3 jobs I have never been so angry reading the newspaper as I was regarding the op-ed commentary about the deadbeat parents ad. The pot of gold does exist; it's called, get more than one job if you have to. Getting tough on parents who fail to pay child support does have a pot of gold at the end. It's called making sure the kids get what they need, like food, clothing, a roof over their heads. Obviously the lawyer and columnist have no idea of what a struggling single parent is all about. I have worked two and three jobs at a time to try to keep food on the table for my three kids. They darn sure weren't $12- or $15-per-hour jobs either. The absent parent should do whatever it takes, if it means working at McDonald's at night and construction during the day. Hunt them down and make them pay. After all, the kids didn't ask to pay for being their child. Commentaries like this raise our state taxes due to single parents needing more assistance. And if they don't qualify, more kids are sent to bed hungry. Hazel Burns Virginia Beach Get the courts involved I have some working knowledge of the child-support-collection system in Virginia. I agree with the authors of the opinion piece that a large percentage of delinquent child-support evaders are of low-income status. However, that does not relieve them of the responsibility of supporting their children. If the person, male or female, cannot pay because of his or her situation, then the courts and the Division of Child Support Enforcement should be willing to reduce the amount of monthly support ordered. The courts and the child-support-collection agencies of this country should also be willing to work together and collect from out-of-state evaders. The problem of inability to pay child support must become a socially unacceptable condition. When the community begins to show its disapproval of those who routinely create life with no thought to how the child will be supported, then maybe collection can be ensured. The problem isn't just teen pregnancies; it's adults who behave as if the baby can take care of itself. The authors of the piece seem to forget that many absent parents don't pay anything for years and years. If one looks at some of the amounts owed by people appearing in the "Have you seen these parents?" ads, it appears that no attempt has been made to pay or keep up with obligations. Personally, if I could receive all my back support from the absent legal (as in married) father of my two college-age daughters, it would cover both of their college costs. Carol Evans Norfolk Misplaced sympathy As a divorced mother of two boys, I take great offense to the article that takes the state to task for publishing pictures shaming all those pitiful noncustodial parents who don't make enough to pay support. I've worked two and three jobs at a time to take care of my children. Why can't their father be expected to do the same? I worked these jobs while raising two children on my own, and he has no other responsibilities to keep him from working. Why can't he be held jointly responsible for the children he created? Why isn't his picture in the paper, too? Elizabeth Phillips Virginia Beach Cry me a river ... How sad that these poor low-income dads are being persecuted for not supporting their children! Boo-hoo. It breaks my heart. How could anyone uphold a low-life, good-for-nothing "sperm donor" (they don't merit the title dad or father) who won't even support their own children? Deborah Hall Chesapeake LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2005 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Email addresses of nearly ALL Virginia judges? | Who Cares??? | Child Support | 2 | September 8th 05 04:36 AM |
Time Article - What Teachers Hate about Parents (x-posted) | Rosalie B. | General | 528 | March 4th 05 02:46 AM |
A Not Birthday Party | Penny Gaines | General | 66 | February 9th 05 04:49 PM |
Nuland says Semmelweis only CLAIMED to have written letters | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | June 9th 04 02:34 AM |
Advice needed - birthday party and 25% of invited guests have RSVP'd - what should I do about the rest | flowerlady | General | 32 | September 26th 03 10:44 AM |