What kind of definition is this. One does not have to be genetically related to be a Parent. Nor does one need to be able-bodied and with above average income. Neither does having all of the above qualities necessarily make someone "A Parent". Just because someone shares genetic material does not make them "A Parent" - A sperm donor is genetically related to offspring created from his sperm but that does not make the donor a Parent. Someone who is genetically related to his offspring but the offspring was adopted does not make that person a Parent. Parenting makes someone a Parent. Regardless - we covered this before. That some person obtains a mans sperm through trickery and deception and then creates a child from that sperm - does not make man - a Parent. Regardless - any way you slice it or dice it - the woman is the responsible party. If she has no financial means she can abort or adopt. Simple. Just because some woman is a deceitful conniving and a nasty person in general - is no reason to punish the victim of her deception and trickery - This is an anathema to the founding principles, the rule of law and so on.
I answered the question directly. You twirling around in a circle crying "irrelevant - irrelevant" does not make it so". Crying "irrelevant" but not stating what you are referring to or offering any explanation as to why my comments were "irrelevant" is both logical fallacy and mindless silliness. It is you who is avoiding addressing the issue and my comments directly - and you know it
Dodging is not the same as answering. 3 of my 5 children are adopted, so I do understand what you are saying. Is it reasonable to expect tax payers to pay childcare related expenses for biological, able-bodied, parents with above average income. Yes or no?
I didn't dodge. I answered the question directly. You are the one dodging by not addressing my response directly - by twirling around in a circle making accusations "dodging - irrelevant" but not backing those claims up. I could just do the same as you are doing by responding to your question with "irrelevant" - giving no further explanation as you do - followed by talking over all of your comments - but I don't do this. It is you that does this. Any idiot can sit in the peanut gallery shouting "irrelevant" or other baseless accusations - to what ever topic is being discusses. This is meaningless gibberish unless accompanied by some explanation of what is being referred to and how it is irrelevant. I answered your question already = "Depends on the definition of Parent" .. followed by an explanation - to which you replied "irrelevant". Either respond to my answer or quit asking questions.
You did not define what a parent is. You said "Is it reasonable to expect tax payers to pay childcare related expenses for biological, able-bodied, parents with above average income" This is not a definition of Parent - and you keep dodging discussion of what a parent actually is. There are many definitions of "parent" - in general it is someone who cares and has legal custody of that child - either biological or adopted or Foster. A Parent could be someone who is not engaged in caring for a child - say someone who has abandoned this child. While this person is not acting as a parent they are the parent if the person is the biological parent and at some point agreed to act as a parent or bring that child into this world. The question you are desperately trying to avoid is whether or not being the biological mother or father of a child automatically makes this person 1) "the parent" and 2) legally obligated to support that child on this basis. I claim that biological relationship does not automatically qualify one as "the parent". Sure an adopted person might refer to the birth mother as the "birth parent" but this is a mere colloquialism and has no legal standing. The birth mother does not act as a parent and nor is she legally recognized as the parent. The same is true of the sperm donor - while this person could be referred to as the biological parent colloquially - this person does not act as a parent nor is he legally recognized as the parent. In neither of the above cases - while being the biological mother or father - is this person legally obligated to support the child. It is then false to claim that 1) a person is "a Parent" on the basis of genetic relation (except in the colloquial sense) and 2) that legal responsibility is necessarily a function of biological relationship.
Yes, it does make them the biological parent! How far are you willing to move the bar to avoid a simple question? Who other than the 2 I mentioned should take responsibility?
Just because someone is a biological father or mother does not make them "a parent" - not by any stretch of the imagination. You repeating "Yes it does - Yes it does" - with no further comment does not make that claim true. You are the only one avoiding here. Do you not know what the word colloquial means ? I stated that they were biological parents in this sense. In the legal sense your claim is false - and you completely ignored this fact. You then go on to ask a question that was answered in the last post. Repeating a question over and over - because one does not like the answer - is moronic playground antics. You have been desperately trying to claim that genetic relation necessarily implies responsibility. I gave you two examples - Adoption, Sperm donor - where this claim is false. Obviously in the case of adopted parents - they are responsible. Obviously in the case of the sperm donor - the couple that used that sperm to create a child are responsible. Obviously in the case of Foster Parents - they are responsible. In each case the people that either made the decision to created the child (in this case from the sperm of a donor) - and/or agreed to be legally responsible for that child - are responsible for that child.
We agree that the responsibility should not fall on the child. How about answering my question? Who other than the 2 I mentioned should take responsibility?
I answered your question - twice now ? I gave you number of examples other than the biological father and mother that have responsibility. Repeating your question over and over is not going to get a different answer.
No, you invented your own question and answered yourself. I gave a specific example. What are you afraid of?
What question did I invent ? Since you can no longer post without making up falsehoods it would seem that it is you who is afraid.
2 able bodied people with above average income make a baby. It is reasonable to expect tax payers to pick up the tab. Yes, or no? Its a simple question.
1) The taxpayers do not have to pick up the tab = the State has other options 2) If the State does choose to pick up the tab - then it is what it is. If the State chooses to pick up the tab - then it is reasonable to expect that the State will pick up the tab. What is not reasonable is - in the situation where the State has chosen to pick up the tab - is to try to justify violation of the rule of law and founding principles on the basis that the State has chosen to pick up the tab. Your argument fails on account of both 1) 2) and for various other reasons mentioned previously.
Your question was answered - you asked who should pick up the tab - a question that has more than one answer depending on who you ask. 1) Some think the State should not pick up the tab. 2) If the State decides to pick up the tab then the State picks up the tab - regardless of what you or I think the State should do. 3) Then there is the fact that there are numerous ways for the State to avoid picking up the Tab. There is no direct "Yes/No" answer to your question unless if you go with (2) which is conditioned on the State deciding to pick up the tab. Of course if the State decides to pick up the tab - as part of Gov't policy - it is reasonable to expect the State to pick up the Tab - which of course is using taxpayers money how they see fit.
I did tell you what I think - numerous times. I think that the State should help the poor. To what degree the State should help is another question. How the State should provide that help is yet another. The idea that I think State should decide to help the poor - and then use this decision as justification for violating the rule of law and founding principles however, is preposterous nonsense. You repeating "the man should pay" does not change that fact.
We already agreed on helping the less fortunate. My example was about 2 people with above average income.
And what would you like to know that has not already been covered about these two souls You are running around in circles.
How many dodges are you up to? Are you afraid to answer the question because your answer contradicts your entire argument?
I have neither dodged your questions nor contradicted myself - you can not even manage to state what the dodge or contradiction is? The one who is dodging and who is in contradiction you. Your argument is so bad that you can not even admit to it. You want the State to make one person responsible for the unilateral decision of another with respect to an unintended pregnancy. You then turn around and contradict yourself - in that you only want this rule to apply when it is a male that is being held responsible for the decision of another. You care not for the rule of law . you care not for equality under the law. You are only for liberty and the founding principles for things you agree with. You then complain that you are being insulted when the consequences of your own words are revealed to you. This is truly pathetic ... and no amount of doging and weaving will change this fact.
