Am I the only one to get this fact about Roe V Wade? Or tin foil hat time?

[mrcheerful]

Thats another thing that Roe VS Wade did. Remember before abortions became legal men never paid child support. Some were forced into marriage or the military, but they were never expected to pay for the children they fathered. In fact, abortion was considered to be a woman's issue and very few men were involved. Then 2 things happened, Friend of the court was invented to force men to pay child support and Jerry Fawell and the rest of the TV preachers came into power. It was them that decided that if men had to pay child support, then men had a say in a womans decision of having a baby or not.

Everything has a link, just follow the links and you find out truth. Remember the spin on child support was that it would mean less women on welfare, though the spin doctors knew that the way the FOC was set up very few women would get enough support for themselves and children to get off welfare plus as an added bonus the state got more money by taking support money to pay for the mothers on welfare. What is going on is yet once again the american people got screwed.

By making abortion legal, then making dead beat parents pay for children, the government comes out the winner. Look at who is pro choice and anti choice then figure out whats behind the abortion issue. Got fooled again.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I don't see the link.

My parents divorced in the early '60s, and my father was told to pay child support.

Roe v Wade was in the early '70s.

[endarkenment]

2. Uh - what are you talking about?

"II. THE AMERICAN INVENTION OF A COMMON-LAW CHILD SUPPORT DUTY

American courts in the nineteenth century addressed the problem of dependency among single mothers and their children by creating a legally enforceable child support duty. A legal child support obligation was unknown to English law, a fact that was repeatedly noted by courts and commentators skeptical of the new duty. But for the courts that supported the new doctrine (which was the majority view by the end of the century),(55) the danger of dependency among single mothers--seen both as poverty and as dependency on the state(56)--was enough to justify their departure from precedent. Courts early in the nineteenth century referred to concerns about dependency in the first American child support decisions. From mid-century to 1900, American courts consolidated the child support obligation, reasoning in a discourse of fault and punishment as they addressed dependency among single mothers."
http://www.ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm

If you are going to propose a thesis like this do try and spend a few minutes checking your basic assumptions. There is no correlation with abortion laws, at least not within the timeline you cite. Here a link to an actual timeline of childsupport law in the US:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm

Note the first case law is 1808.

[iamahaingttta]

3. What the hell are you talking about?

Just wondering...

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Fathers did have to pay child support before Roe.

Where did you get this bogus info? Who's sending it out?

Definitely tin foil hat stuff. :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Hamlette]

5. so, you're saying dads paying child support is a bad thing? n/t

[endarkenment]

9. Do some research

We are almost unique in relying on coercion and punishment to support single parent families. It is a stupid system.

[mrcheerful]

15. Not at all, what I'm saying is how Jerry Falwell types have used this arguement for men to have

a say on weather abortions are just a womans issue, In another words, men have a say because they have to pay support.

[qdemn7]

6. Yup,

You definitely need a better grade of tinfoil. That shit you're using is letting those alien mind-control waves in again. :eyes:

[emanymton]

7. Sophistry - But I Like It

"Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim."

But be that as it may, if this line of reasoning makes you feel better, go for it.



The issues are the right of the individual and personal freedom.

[endarkenment]

11. In this case he cannot even argue that fallacy. nt.

[emanymton]

12. This Makes Sophistry So Appealing.

Pose a foolish question using intelligently sounding words. One can get far in this world of fact empty punditry.

[Az]

8. To restate his premise

Mrcheerful is suggesting that those who favor minimizing government sought to remove supporting women from the government welfare by legalizing abortion and forcing men to support them financially.

[endarkenment]

10. Mr. Cheerful doesn't have any actual facts for his thesis.

The facts, as I noted above, falsify his assumptions.

[mrcheerful]

13. Really how so? True FOC was founded in 1919, but it wasn't anything like it is today

I remember that it wasn't until the 70's before laws were tightened up on paying support. There was no ations taken against dead beat dads until then. At least in the state of Michigan. When they toughened up the laws the republicans stated at the time that by making the laws to go after dead beat dads it would ensure mothers wouldn't need welfare as the fathers paying child support would provide for the welfare mothers, this was 73 or 74.

I remember how some of my family members who had gotten pregnant in the 60's as teens and some who went through divorce that never got a dime from child support during the same time period. Like I said dad beat dads were never forced to pay support back then, even if court ordered. Maybe thats why I mistakenly said FOC wasn't around because I never heard of child support until I was in my late teenage years. Trust me, I had a cousin who got pregnant and was sent away to have the baby, her parents claimed she was in the state mental hospital for a nervous break down, I wouldn't have missed a grown up bitching about child support.

[endarkenment]

19. "There was no ations taken against dead beat dads until then."

Like I said, you need to do some actual research. Five minutes of googling. As it is your evidence is stories from your past. The legal system enforcing child support goes back to at least 1808 in this country and varies from state to state. Tying this to abortion policy is an interesting idea, but on the surface appears to be complete bullshit.

[mrcheerful]

21. Think about who benefits from child support payments. The vast majority of child support

money goes into the states coffers as long as the mother is on FIA. My SO also recieves Child support, when the boy's dad pays it, he pays $60 a month, my SO gets $27 a month, the rest is taken by the state until her SSI starts. Once she's on SSI she will get the full support payment, if her son's dad ever gets a job that is.

Like I said think about who is anti abortion and how that making abortions illegal will add to child support payments to the state.
The religious nut's will buy into the idealism that it's "god's is against abortion" but from what I have seen over the last 50 years, republicans care very little about life or death issues unless its either to get them votes or more money.

[endarkenment]

22. Once again, and then I give up.

You actually have to have facts to back up your theory. You have not presented any facts, any historical evidence. Quite the contrary, it was trivial to determine that child support laws predate the decriminalization of abortion by about 160 years or so.

[mrcheerful]

24. Again there were laws on the books but they were not enforced until after R v W.

As another poster pointed out, punishment for not paying support came in 1984. Before that very few if any people spent time in jail for non payment. It first started out in the 70's with the courts ordering employeers to give the employees check to FOC if the dead beat dad was working.

[Warpy]

14. Men generally scream bloody murder about child support

because they don't want to see a dime of their money going to a woman they're no longer banging*. Yes, they want to control a woman's personal decisions. No, they don't get to.

Yes, the two things happened about the same time, but coincidence isn't always cause.


*save your flames. Yes, I know men who love their children and grouse about paying their mother money to help support them, but do it nonetheless. I also know some who moved to be closer to their children after the split. They still hate paying.

[mrcheerful]

16. Hey my SO has to pay support too, only she has no problems with paying.

Thanks for understanding what I was getting at, I was going by what I remembered from child hood, I had an aunt with 10 kids and none of the fathers ever paid a dime in support nor was it a crime not to pay, back then. All of the FOC laws came after R v W that ensured jailing dead beat dads. I am the product of a first marriage not only did my bio father never pay one dime for support but he also never paid for any of the medical expenses after I had a car accident in 1962, nor for any of the braces and other medical aids I needed growing up disabled. Trust me if mom could have used any legal means of getting those bills paid for by him, she would have done it.

[Fleshdancer]

17. Child Support and Child Support Enforcement started long before Roe Vs Wade

The first link describes the history of child support. The second link details the timeline for the legislative history of child support enforcement.

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm


Pre-19th Century The poor laws
from 1601

The earliest history of child support in the USA came from the inheritance of the English poor laws. These laws were intended to allow parishes (local communities) to recover their costs of keeping people out of destitution from the relatives of those people. The laws didn't allow those people themselves (or other people) to claim from their relatives.

Pre-1776
Child support in the 13 colonies "Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history".

about 1800
to 1880
Development of civil law for child support. At first, courts developed civil law for child support. This especially enabled communities that kept lone mothers and children out of destitution to claim from the fathers. (This was similar in principle to the poor laws, but intended to be clearer and more effective).

1808
Stanton v. Willson
"American courts in the nineteenth century addressed the problem of dependency among single mothers and their children by creating a legally enforceable child support duty.... One reason for the divergent fortunes of men and women after a divorce was that the transformations in the American conception of children from wage earners to dependents who needed constant nurturing and the trend toward maternal preference in custody decisions combined to require divorced women to bear the burden of raising children who did not work.... American courts in the nineteenth century invented a parental child support obligation in the context of increasing concerns about dependency among single mothers.... When single motherhood began to emerge in nineteenth-century America, the judiciary was the only institution of the American state that could deal with dependency among single mothers and their children: The poor laws were being overwhelmed by population growth and urbanization, and private charities and state poor-relief agencies had not yet appeared. The first child support statutes built on this judicial innovation, codifying a child support system that relied primarily on payments from absent parents, instead of on public supports for families." Hansen.

about 1870 onward
Development of criminal law for failing to support children
Now states started to pass laws against desertion and nonsupport. It started to become a criminal offence, with punishments including prison. Also, gradually it became possible for individuals, such as lone mthers, to claim child support.

By 1886 (Compilation of statutes)
By 1886, 11 states had made it a penal offence for a father to abandon or refuse to support his minor children. Typically, it still needed evidence that without this support the children would be a cost to the community.

1884
New Jersey statute
Examples of states taking action because fathers were criminally responsible for allowing children to become a public charge. The New York statute punished nonsupporting fathers with imprisonment and hard labour.

1st half of 20th Century
The court system continued to operate. The number of separated families continued to rise. 46 states had laws criminalising desertion and non-support.

1935 Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271)
This included Aid for Dependent Children. ADC (later AFDC; F = Families) established a partnership between the federal government and the states by providing appropriations to those states which adopted plans approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The states in turn provided a minimum monthly subsistence payment to families meeting established need requirements (such as an absent parent not providing support). This later gradually drove child support enforcement, in order to reduce expenditure on AFDC

"Care for children" becomes one of the few entitlements for welfare. Compared with other countries, this tends to make "child support by parents" a prominent objective.





http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/appendix_a.html

APPENDIX A: Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement

1950
Congress passed the first Federal child support enforcement legislation requiring State welfare agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement officials upon providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with respect to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a parent. 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(11).

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) (amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968).

1965
Public Law (P.L.) 89-97—The Social Security Amendments of 1965 permit State or local welfare agencies to obtain from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare the address and place of employment of a noncustodial parent who owes child support under a court order for support.

1967
P.L. 90-248—Under the Social Security Amendments of 1967, States may obtain from the Internal Revenue Service the addresses of noncustodial parents who owe child support under a court order for support. In addition, each State must establish a single organizational unit to establish paternity and collect child support for deserted children receiving AFDC. States must work cooperatively with each other under child support reciprocity agreements and with courts and law enforcement officials.

[mrcheerful]

18. Those laws were on the books yet notice how it wasn't until 1984 that

people were no punished for not paying support. Most states didn't go after dead beat dads before 1970. Remember there were also laws about adultry which people didn't pay attention to either.

[Fleshdancer]

20. I'm not convinced it's tied to Roe vs Wade or Falwell though

I think it has to do more with States wanting to minimize the amount of people on welfare. Place the financial burden on the parents so that the state is less likely to incur the costs. I don't know about other states, but I know that in Texas, the largest group on welfare are single moms who don't receive the child support they are owed.

The reason 1984 was a critical year for enforcement is because that's when states were finally able to get access to the earned and unearned income information reported to the IRS by employers and financial institutions. Is there a way to know if Falwell was tied to the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984 in any way?

[mrcheerful]

23. No Falwell was a republican supporter, and it wasn't just Falwell, it was all the TV preachers

that jumped on the republican band wagon. They had no direct involvement with how laws were made, but think of Falwells followers and their influence on laws. Btw, republicans don't want an end to welfare, the day welfare dies they lose their biggest scape goat for the country being in the red.

As far as your statement that child support laws were toughened to get people off welfare, I have yet to hear of one single mother that was able to get off welfare through child support, I know of a GM worker who was paying $650 a week to child support. His ex was on welfare, she got $90 of that $650, the rest went to the state to pay for her being on welfare. Things that make me go hmmmmmmmmmm.

[stirlingsliver]

25. As The Caveman On The GEICO Commerical Says,

As the caveman on the GEICO commercial says,

"Uh, WHAT?"

What in the world are you saying?

And where are the links you mention?

[mrcheerful]

26. R v W comes out a few years later FOC laws start being used and wages are

Garnisheed, about the same time period the republican party, at least in michigan, start using the child support payments as a pay back for single mothers on welfare, to cover up that fact they tell the people that with these new laws that single mothers will be able to get off welfare. Yet I know of no studies or reports to back up the claim that women were able to get off welfare through child support payments. Abortions mean less money for the state. One thing I learned over the years was never put anything past elected officials.

Think about another fact left out, welfare as it was in the 80's, didn't start until Nixon took office. Welfare before that time was limited to getting food vouchers and a stop utilities from being shut off payment. Like I said during that time before R V W, there were no real punishment for being a dead beat father nor did they go after a person for abandoning their wives and children, Though it did happen, it wasn't done very much. Mostly because the states had no way to go after them or even find them once they left the area.

But then people born after 1970 have no clue on the america of 1950 and 1960, just like those born before 1950 have no clue about the america of 1940 and 1930. Just like how the schools that I went to in the 60's told students that a river didn't freeze because the current ran to fast for ice to form, yet I saw pictures of the same river taken in the 20's showing people harvesting ice from the river to use in the ice house's. I showed that picture to the teacher and was put out of the class for insubordination.

We believe that things have always been the same as when we grew up, with only improvements on our luxuries. But the fact is Even the smallest change the government does, theres a long term benefit in it for them. Look at how some of you believe that the FOC law was pretty much the same today as it was when it was first written. Yet you over look the fact that when the law was written they had no way of enforcing that law. People could just disappear from the laws sight by moving to another state or the wilderness. So why was a law written when it couldn't be enforced?

Edited to add, think about who these anti abortion people are trying to stop from getting abortions. Why is it that a rich woman can go to a country where abortions are legal and not have anyone say a thing to them about the murder of their baby nor do they suffer any punishment if abortions became illegal. Yet again it falls on the poor who more then likely will have to go on state aid for help.