Father of 30 wants help... - Page 9 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 Old 05-31-2012, 03:21 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhippy View Post

 

And I for mine AlixJ18..beatnik2.gif

You need counselling!

Clueless Git is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#242 Old 05-31-2012, 04:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

 

It seems that he did choose partners with similar values.

 

It would also seem that so did the women.

 

Still remains that these children being born was exclusively the choice of the women.

 

 

 

I am saying that ONLY the parent with the choice to have, or not to have, a child can actualy choose to have, or not to have, children.

 

It is either wrong, or not wrong, to force people to pay for other peoples reproductive choices.

 

If it is wrong to force people to pay for other peoples reproductive then men should not have pay for the reproductive choices of women.

 

 

I do know that's a major PITB for the 'cake and eat it' crew but, sadly, you can't have cake and eat it.

 

Er, just because the mother carries the baby doesn't mean there isn't still a father. Both are equally responsible for creating the life, but only the woman should get to decide whether to carry to term or abort while the foetus is actually inside her body.
Pixie is offline  
#243 Old 05-31-2012, 06:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Limes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie View Post

Oh don't even get me started on the tax credits for kids. I need to go to bed sometime. :p

 

The unchilded get screwed any way you look at things.  And the middle class gets the shaft no matter what party is in office.

 

And yet people wonder why some of us want a third party.

 

dizzy2.gif

 

Tell me more about how daycare for your dog costs $1000 a month, so you can continue to go to work and be a contributing member of society.

 

The government gives me $300 each month for my kid.  I put him in daycare, spending out the wazoo, creating jobs.  These people pay taxes on their income from me.  I continue to go to work, and give much more than that $300 back in my taxes.  Really they're giving me nothing at all.

 

Maybe in the US it's a relative amount of money for having a kid? Because I can not imagine myself going through having a child just for the sake of this $300.  Changing his ass and feeding him costs more, so for the amount of work involved in a child, I would way rather work part time at Wendy's than pop out a baby for income.

Limes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#244 Old 05-31-2012, 06:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
happyhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limes View Post

 



 

Maybe in the US it's a relative amount of money for having a kid? Because I can not imagine myself going through having a child just for the sake of this $300.  Changing his ass and feeding him costs more, so for the amount of work involved in a child, I would way rather work part time at Wendy's than pop out a baby for income.

 I do not know about the US Limes ..but here in the UK having a baby can be a quite nice source of income thank you!

 

I know this because I am a welfare benefit caseworker and do the adding up!!!

 

A single woman with a baby or small child under six who decides not to return to work can claim Income Support which although relatively low is very relevant because receipt of that benefit carries with it entitlement to full rent benefit and full council tax benefit.  Child tax credit can also be claimed and can provide quite a considerable additional income if you have several children and then of course they claim Child benefit for each individual child. It can also incorporate generous additional costs for nursery care.

 

I have a case on my files at present where a previously absent father paying child maintence decided to move in and care for his children when his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He is working at present on a very modest wage. When we did the calculations of their future joint income the disparity was so high they decided against this move as neither of them could afford the drop in income. She would have lost her Income Support and associated rent and council tax benefit  for starters. Her Child tax credit would have gone down because of his income and generally they would have been in a financial mess!

 

They decided it was not a financially viable option and they remained apart with him continuing to pay child support.

 

Ironically ..The best senario for them would have been for him to quit work as well at which point they would have ticked all the boxes and been better off than ever!! And I know lots of couples who grab this option!!!

 

Not much incentive to do otherwise really is there?

happyhippy is offline  
#245 Old 05-31-2012, 07:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Limes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 1,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhippy View Post

 

I know this because I am a welfare benefit caseworker and do the adding up!!!

 

 

Your job is very similar to my mommy then smiley.gif

 

Maybe I just don't know well enough how to milk the system. tongue3.gif  But I prefer working anyway. Terribly boring at home.

Limes is offline  
#246 Old 05-31-2012, 08:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kazyeeqen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freesia View Post

I think the only ones having any fun are the rich.


No way! Mo' money; mo' problems... smiley.gif

kazyeeqen is offline  
#247 Old 05-31-2012, 09:51 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixie View Post

 

Er, just because the mother carries the baby doesn't mean there isn't still a father. Both are equally responsible for creating the life, but only the woman should get to decide whether to carry to term or abort while the foetus is actually inside her body.

Exactly.

 

Carrying to term has nothing to do with the man whatsoever.

 

Exclusively a female choice = exclusively a female responsibility.

Clueless Git is offline  
#248 Old 05-31-2012, 09:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post
Exclusively a female choice = exclusively a female responsibility.

Yeah, fathers are worthless and bear no responsibility to their offspring. 

 

You're quite the catch.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#249 Old 05-31-2012, 10:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Exactly.

 

Carrying to term has nothing to do with the man whatsoever.

 

Exclusively a female choice = exclusively a female responsibility.

It doesn't matter if carrying to term/ terminating is the decision for the father, he is still the biological father of the foetus/baby. I only got a B grade at GCSE for Biology but even I grasp that basic fact.

Pixie is offline  
#250 Old 05-31-2012, 10:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limes View Post

 

dizzy2.gif

 

Tell me more about how daycare for your dog costs $1000 a month, so you can continue to go to work and be a contributing member of society.

 

The government gives me $300 each month for my kid.  I put him in daycare, spending out the wazoo, creating jobs.  These people pay taxes on their income from me.  I continue to go to work, and give much more than that $300 back in my taxes.  Really they're giving me nothing at all.

 

Maybe in the US it's a relative amount of money for having a kid? Because I can not imagine myself going through having a child just for the sake of this $300.  Changing his ass and feeding him costs more, so for the amount of work involved in a child, I would way rather work part time at Wendy's than pop out a baby for income.

I'm not saying you or anyone else pops out a kid for income. Some do, yes, but I think most people have kids because they want kids.  But a kid is a choice.  The ones who had it should pay for it.

 

It may be different in Canada, but here in the US, the unchilded pay into the same social programs as any working person and don't get a big deduction come tax time, but should we fall on hard times ourselves, there's not much help out there for us. It's all reserved for people with kids. Food stamps, grants for school, you name it. It's for families with kids under 18. And the single mom gets even more help than the married mom.  I don't know how anyone can think that's a fair deal.

 

Oh, I did have to pay for day care for a dog for a while until I got him over separation anxiety. Otherwise I wouldn't have a house left. :p

Wolfie is offline  
#251 Old 05-31-2012, 10:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Meh, I understand Clueless Gits argument strictly from a post conception standpoint and I can even hypothetically agree to an extent, however, one would have to assume the guy donating the sperm is completely unaware that if the girl gets with child it's too late for him to escape financial responsibilities for the child if the girl decides to take it to term..

Is there really a guy out there that is unaware of the fact they could bear a financial responsibility for a child he helped produce and the ability to avoid such responsibility occurs only before intercourse?
Forster is offline  
#252 Old 05-31-2012, 10:44 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post
Is there really a guy out there that is unaware of the fact they could bear a financial responsibility for a child he helped produce and the ability to avoid such responsibility occurs only before intercourse?

Exactly!

Pixie is offline  
#253 Old 05-31-2012, 11:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freesia View Post

I think the only ones having any fun are the rich.

 

If you honestly believe that, I feel sorry for you.

das_nut is offline  
#254 Old 05-31-2012, 11:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

one would have to assume the guy donating the sperm...

There's your problem.  He didn't donate the sperm.  It was stolen from him tongue3.gif


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#255 Old 05-31-2012, 11:31 AM
Beginner
 
Ginariffic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Exactly.

 

Carrying to term has nothing to do with the man whatsoever.

 

 

  A man is perfectly capable in aiding a woman with at least the financial burdens incurred by paying for an abortion. A man is able to respond by doing so. A man is also able to respond before this by saying "No, thank you, I would not like to risk you getting pregnant. I will proceed to not have sex with you now." Additionally, a man is able to inquire about the values of the woman regarding unwanted pregnancy and determine if, in his best judgement, she will stick to them. If a man is not willing to do all this, he is simply lazy. Either way, any consequences are then his.

 

 The same goes for a woman. Additionally, I think it is a woman's responsibility to insure a child will be cared for one way or another before she gives birth. Even if that means forcibly extracting money from a reluctant father's pocket. That comes with the understanding that a man has a finite amount of money to give. You can't get blood from a stone, evidenced by this guy we're talking about.

 

 Hopefully, two people can work out caring for their child on their own without legal help, but if only one partner is not providing for the results of both their actions, then the law can and should be used. If both are not, that child should be taken care of by someone else. 

Ginariffic is offline  
#256 Old 05-31-2012, 03:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
happyhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limes View Post

 

Your job is very similar to my mommy then smiley.gif

 

Maybe I just don't know well enough how to milk the system. tongue3.gif  But I prefer working anyway. Terribly boring at home

 

 

 

I would be the same Limes.. and I have to say that I do also have single mums on my books who know the system and could milk it but have too much pride and self respect. 

happyhippy is offline  
#257 Old 05-31-2012, 04:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
happyhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixie View Post

 

Er, just because the mother carries the baby doesn't mean there isn't still a father. Both are equally responsible for creating the life, but only the woman should get to decide whether to carry to term or abort while the foetus is actually inside her body.

 

 

So..the father is either included in or excluded from responsibility as it suits?

 

He is included in responsibility for creating a life but excluded from responsibility of choosing whether to end that life?

happyhippy is offline  
#258 Old 05-31-2012, 04:46 PM
Veggie Regular
 
happyhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

So you're saying that if a man impregnates a female (as a result of his choices) and doesn't want the child then he should be able to walk away from it. 

 

I think that plain and simple logic is being applied here. If we accept the premise that..

 

  possession of a uterus gives a woman the sole responsibility for the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy or not

 

then we must also accept that..

 

a woman is solely responsible for the product of the choice that was made solely by her.

happyhippy is offline  
#259 Old 05-31-2012, 04:48 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Is there really a guy out there that is unaware of the fact they could bear a financial responsibility for a child he helped produce and the ability to avoid such responsibility occurs only before intercourse?

 

From a skint guys PoV. Who gives a sh*t? Man who knows his wallet is empty = man who knows he won't have to pay.

 

Is there realy a woman out there (by which I mean not yet contributing to this topic) who is unaware of the fact that man with empty wallet = man who can't pay?

 

The woman has at least 3 months post-conception to work this type of mind bending mathematics out.

Clueless Git is offline  
#260 Old 05-31-2012, 04:51 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginariffic View Post

  A man is perfectly capable in aiding a woman with at least the financial burdens incurred by paying for an abortion.

 

 

Well, actualy a man with no money is perfectly incapable of any such thing.

Clueless Git is offline  
#261 Old 05-31-2012, 04:53 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhippy View Post

 

I think that plain and simple logic is being applied here. If we accept the premise that..

 

  possession of a uterus gives a woman the sole responsibility for the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy or not

 

then we must also accept that..

 

a woman is solely responsible for the product of the choice that she was made solely by her.

 

Is it not bed time in Stepford yet?

Clueless Git is offline  
#262 Old 05-31-2012, 04:56 PM
Newbie
 
ScienceVegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.  Those with children get screwed, while us childfree folk have awesome lives.  ;)


Ha! ITA - you could pay me a million dollars and I still wouldn't have a kid. 

 

No matter what people say about whose responsibility a child is, as a woman I made sure that I wouldn't ever have one that I didn't want, because ultimately it is *I* who would have been carrying the burden of pregnancy and ultimately the responsibility for a kid, no matter what anybody says. Fair? I suppose not, but nature doesn't care about fair.

 

At least women do have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, which is also taking responsibility, IMO. I agree with those who say here that a man shouldn't be legally responsible for a kid he doesn't want; ultimately a man doesn't (and shouldn't) have any say over whether or not to abort. If a man finds himself with an unwanted kid on the way, he should be able to sign a document stating that he would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy and doesn't want any rights or responsibilities to the child, and he shouldn't have to pay child support.

ScienceVegan is offline  
#263 Old 05-31-2012, 04:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
happyhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

 

Is it not bed time in Stepford yet?

 

 

Nor in district 9 it would appear?

happyhippy is offline  
#264 Old 05-31-2012, 05:02 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Yeah, fathers are worthless and bear no responsibility to their offspring. 

 

Post conception this is exactly so.

 

The fathers interest in his childs life and the life of the child itself have absolutely no worth at all.

 

The only thing given any worth is the choice of the mother and so only the choice the mother is worth taking into account from conception on.

 

 

Quote:

You're quite the catch.

 

Yes. Yes I am.

 

Your not the bait though. Sorry 'bout that.

Clueless Git is offline  
#265 Old 05-31-2012, 05:06 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceVegan View Post

 

At least women do have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, which is also taking responsibility, IMO. I agree with those who say here that a man shouldn't be legally responsible for a kid he doesn't want; ultimately a man doesn't (and shouldn't) have any say over whether or not to abort. If a man finds himself with an unwanted kid on the way, he should be able to sign a document stating that he would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy and doesn't want any rights or responsibilities to the child, and he shouldn't have to pay child support.

 

That would be perfectly fair.

 

Ergo it must be wrong.

Clueless Git is offline  
#266 Old 05-31-2012, 05:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhippy View Post

 

 

Nor in district 9 it would appear?

And for those who haven't cottoned on yet ... stupid.gif btw.

 

District 9 now closing down for the night. love.gif

Clueless Git is offline  
#267 Old 05-31-2012, 05:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

From a skint guys PoV. Who gives a sh*t? Man who knows his wallet is empty = man who knows he won't have to pay.

Is there realy a woman out there (by which I mean not yet contributing to this topic) who is unaware of the fact that man with empty wallet = man who can't pay?

The woman has at least 3 months post-conception to work this type of mind bending mathematics out.

Man has 18 years to get his wallet full, obviously the guy in question won't be able to get his wallet full enough, but he's an aberration. In the interim the taxpayers get screwed with out the benefit of getting laid first. Bio daddy ought to cough it up to support his offspring before the taxpaying public gets stuck with the rest of the bill. If he has to live in poverty to do so, I don't care.
Forster is offline  
#268 Old 05-31-2012, 06:00 PM
Beginner
 
Ginariffic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

 

Well, actualy a man with no money is perfectly incapable of any such thing.

 And somehow a woman with no money is to the extent that you can hold her completely responsible, but not a man?

Ginariffic is offline  
#269 Old 05-31-2012, 07:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post


Man has 18 years to get his wallet full, obviously the guy in question won't be able to get his wallet full enough, but he's an aberration. In the interim the taxpayers get screwed with out the benefit of getting laid first. Bio daddy ought to cough it up to support his offspring before the taxpaying public gets stuck with the rest of the bill.

I agree.  First try to have the biological parents pay for their own children - they're the ones who chose to have sex.  Then go to the taxpayers.

 

I'm not sure why taxpayers should pay for the basic needs of a bio child of a man (or woman) when he is perfectly able to pay for his own child, but just doesn't want to.  Well, I don't want to either, but I'm not the one who had sex and produced that child. 

 

Sex has the risk that a child might be produced.


"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#270 Old 05-31-2012, 11:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhippy View Post
So..the father is either included in or excluded from responsibility as it suits?

He is included in responsibility for creating a life but excluded from responsibility of choosing whether to end that life?

Well not as it suits, but for the months that the foetus/baby resides in the woman's body clearly it is her choice whether to carry it to term or not as you understand as you made the choice to have a termination as I recall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

 First try to have the biological parents pay for their own children - they're the ones who chose to have sex.  Then go to the taxpayers.

 

yes.gif

Pixie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off