If you could cut one welfare payment, what would it be ?

micropig

Millicent wrote: »

This part is actually what I object to:



They're both equally responsible. That's kind of how procreation works.

To be honest, I'd rather see the absent parent's wages or welfare payments garnished if they are not supporting children they have made and a punishment for non-payment, like revocation of driver's licence/jail as in some U.S. states. Then, I think, single parent allowances could be cut.

Both should be equally responsibility and agree re furnishing wages etc.

But there are more consequences for the girl ie; pregnancy, birth /abort, possibly left with no support & have to cope on her own (I am aware this happens the other way around also)

Why would you run the risk of anyone else taking responsibility for your contraception?

smash

micropig wrote: »

Why would you run the risk of anyone else taking responsibility for your contraception?

Why would men do it?

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

Both should be equally responsibility and agree re furnishing wages etc.

But there are more consequences for the girl ie; pregnancy, birth /abort, possibly left with no support & have to cope on her own (I am aware this happens the other way around also)

Why would you run the risk of anyone else taking responsibility for your contraception?

I do take responsibility for my own contraception and agree on that point. However, that means that BOTH parties should be responsible and not rely on the other for contraception. My objection to your post is that it puts the onus on the woman to take responsibility for a child, when both should be responsible. It's that same attitude that causes single parent poverty in the country, by letting irresponsible parents off scot-free. Parents rights and regulations (for both genders) need a big boot into the future in this country.

micropig

smash wrote: »

Why would men do it?

They should also but ultimately is the girl's body

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

They should also but ultimately is the girl's body

But the man and the woman's child.

smash

micropig wrote: »

They should also but ultimately is the girl's body

So what, it's THEIR baby!

hairyprincess

Wow Token, so much anger and venom spilling out of your every post; didn't your mammy hug you when you were a little boy?

micropig

Millicent wrote: »

I do take responsibility for my own contraception and agree on that point. However, that means that BOTH parties should be responsible and not rely on the other for contraception. My objection to your post is that it puts the onus on the woman to take responsibility for a child, when both should be responsible. It's that same attitude that causes single parent poverty in the country, by letting irresponsible parents off scot-free. Parents rights and regulations (for both genders) need a big boot into the future in this country.

True and I'll think you find that I agree that both parents should be made responsible and made to pay for their child.

How many female lone parents have you heard say

I left him because he's abusive, immature...etc
Again why you trust someone with such a responsibility when the consequences are massive?

smash

Because circumstances change!

hairyprincess

narddog wrote: »

Cut childrens allowance. You want to have kids, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to help cover the cost of raising them. You are squirting out a child honey, not splitting the ****ing atom. Get over yourself and stop expecting free money.

Closely followed by rent allowance. As a house owner who has rented out a house to someone receiving RA, they treat your house like ****, have no respect for anything and expect someone else to pick up the pieces after they have wrecked havoc.

Tar. Brush. Move on pet.

gcgirl

hairyprincess wrote: »

Wow Token, so much anger and venom spilling out of your every post; didn't your mammy hug you when you were a little boy?

I felt like Louise out of Fade st
Thank you no really thank you

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

True and I'll think you find that I agree that both parents should be made responsible and made to pay for their child.

How many female lone parents have you heard say

I left him because he's abusive, immature...etc
Again why you trust someone with such a responsibility when the consequences are massive?

Because it's THEIR responsibility! Just because they left him, or he left them, doesn't mean the child should be left behind, whether financially or through visitation. If it's proven that he (as per your example) is abusive and may harm the child, he should still be forced to pay for his responsibilities.

And as to why you'd trust someone with such a responsibility, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the person the woman chose to have a child with was someone they trusted. Just because he proves himself to be untrustworthy after that, doesn't mean the woman is in the wrong for having sex with him in the first place.

micropig

Millicent wrote: »

Because it's THEIR responsibility! Just because they left him, or he left them, doesn't mean the child should be left behind, whether financially or through visitation. If it's proven that he (as per your example) is abusive and may harm the child, he should still be forced to pay for his responsibilities. .

+1 Agree

Millicent wrote: »

And as to why you'd trust someone with such a responsibility, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the person the woman chose to have a child with was someone they trusted. Just because he proves himself to be untrustworthy after that, doesn't mean the woman is in the wrong for having sex with him in the first place.

So the man gets no choice in who has a child with him?

I'm sure they have shown themselves untrustworthy before the baby is born if they're the type to leave and abandon their children

No problem having sex with him, maybe not the best idea to have a child with him

I didn't make the rules about it having more consequences for the female, nature & the government did that:p

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

So the man gets no choice in who has a child with him?

How'd you get that out of my post?!?!

micropig wrote: »

I'm sure they have shown themselves untrustworthy before the baby is born if they're the type to leave and abandon their children

No problem having sex with him, maybe not the best idea to have a child with him

I didn't make the rules about it having more consequences for the female, nature & the government did that:p

You'd be surprised and to be honest with you, it's a dangerous and naive view to take. As an example, someone I know very well (the bollox) was going out with a girl for three years with talk of marriage and settling down and all that. The second she told him he was pregnant, however, he fucked off. No one who knew him saw it coming, not even his family.

And nature doesn't make these rules. In the wild, packs of animals all care for their young. That's the natural order of things, not running off after you've spread your seed.

micropig

Millicent wrote: »

How'd you get that out of my post?!?!



You'd be surprised and to be honest with you, it's a dangerous and naive view to take. As an example, someone I know very well (the bollox) was going out with a girl for three years with talk of marriage and settling down and all that. The second she told him he was pregnant, however, he fucked off. No one who knew him saw it coming, not even his family.

And nature doesn't make these rules. In the wild, packs of animals all care for their young. That's the natural order of things, not running off after you've spread your seed.

Why didn't she use effective contraception, until her relationship was in a more secure position?

Maybe she got pregnant as a way of emotionally blackmailing him in to marriage, and it backfired?


We'll never know the full, true story but we can make assumptions.

Dudess

I've been infracted/banned for less than the despicable flame-baiting vitriol on this thread.

Millicent

micropig wrote: »

Why didn't she use effective contraception, until her relationship was in a more secure position?

Maybe she got pregnant as a way of emotionally blackmailing him in to marriage, and it backfired?


We'll never know the full, true story but we can make assumptions.

Eh, no, no she didn't. As I said, I knew him and I know her very well. They were in a committed, secure relationship, in the eyes of everyone, including his family, except for him, apparently. She's not a fan of marriage, and why should she have to be to trust her partner or assume the child they made together should be taken care of?

And no, we can't make assumptions. That's what you're doing. You're assuming all women (or men for that matter) who find themselves left with a child should have some sort of crystal ball into the future to know how their partner will react to a pregnancy.

gcgirl

micropig wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

Because it's THEIR responsibility! Just because they left him, or he left them, doesn't mean the child should be left behind, whether financially or through visitation. If it's proven that he (as per your example) is abusive and may harm the child, he should still be forced to pay for his responsibilities. .

+1 Agree

Millicent wrote: »

And as to why you'd trust someone with such a responsibility, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the person the woman chose to have a child with was someone they trusted. Just because he proves himself to be untrustworthy after that, doesn't mean the woman is in the wrong for having sex with him in the first place.

So the man gets no choice in who has a child with him?

I'm sure they have shown themselves untrustworthy before the baby is born if they're the type to leave and abandon their children

No problem having sex with him, maybe not the best idea to have a child with him

I didn't make the rules about it having more consequences for the female, nature & the government did that:p

With my ex it did not really hit till 4 weeks before our 2 nd planed child was born apart from a couple of unsavoury comments that I found out he was playing away from home, from then it just got worse, I found out I was pregnant on the 3rd I had already taking an overdose because I just wanted to end it, I had convinced myself I was useless because he had told so many time I was a lousy mother but when the lil madam was born I actually had the balls to say enough is enough and got counselling and then had to deal with the little madams condition And now 6 yrs later things are so different, the Ireland of the let's keep everything under the carpet is over

Stuck Cone

Dudess wrote: »

I've been infracted/banned for less than the despicable flame-baiting vitriol on this thread.

Its a bit out of control, i thought starting a conversation about the joys of anal sex would calm the situation/make everyone horny for each other, but clearly not

KeithM89_old

Closed for review.