Can't she be forced to allow him access, if the court have agreed to it? I don't understand that at all, that she can keep moving around to stop him seeing his children, sounds like a ridiculous situation
It really is a ridiculous situation, and I am not privvy to all the details - I was only a young'un myself when the court things happened. I know after they moved and he tried a few other things through the courts with little success, he stopped paying and then within a couple of weeks those people were on him for not paying.
Luckily two of his kids are over 18 now and he gets to see them a lot more so a slightly happy ending. But still the system is not perfect
That still doesn't put the onus on the man though.
If I was straight I certanly would be trying to avoid having children until I had the resources to support them.
Apparently women are less willing for anonymous sex but however they still manage to get pregnant with an aquaintance or on off boyfriend.
the situation reeks of irresponsibility.
What does guys having unprotected sex with these women reek of?
It is the man's responsibility not to sleep with a woman of child bearing age unless he is mature enough to accept the consequences of financial responsibility.
Zip up or pay up!
If the man is unemployed or underage he is unlikely to be able to fund the baby and so the tax payer will be paying.
I agree that a child should have adequate parental attention and mixed sex influences.
I would see that as my responsibility if I was the one pregnant.
People just seem to live in their own different worlds with their own values.
As was mentioned in the abortion thread it is the womans body that the child is dependent on the mans input could be a twenty second fumble.
The biological onus is unfortuantely on the woman.
However I do believe in fully supporting single parents and their offspring. I am not for ostracising.
As the biological onus is on the woman, and the child rearing also, the least a man can do is provide financially for his child, especially if he does not want to be involved with taking care of the child.
Because I guess that protected sex results in much less babies ... but I could be wrong?
Much less yes, but still babies are produced.
I am not having a go, I just wonder why you kept bringing up the unprotected comment when this situation could arise just as simply with all the precautions taken.
That still doesn't put the onus on the man though.
If I was straight I certanly would be trying to avoid having children until I had the resources to support them.
Apparently women are less willing for anonymous sex but however they still manage to get pregnant with an aquaintance or on off boyfriend.
the situation reeks of irresponsibility.
My goodness, you really are one of those mysogynist gays, aren't you? You say, 'if you were straight, you would not have children until you had the resource to support them' but women get pregnant willy-nilly, I'd like to point out that other men are still involved. It takes two, you know. I hate this attitude that women decide when they will get pregnant.
...if women want to indulge themselves with babies then let them pay for them
if the father does not want the child then they should not be expected to pay for it - only fathers that want to be a father should pay child support (like car drivers who want cars pay road tax) - nobody <has> to have a child in this day and age - it should be shared choice
this is morally water-tight - the government also <know> this for a fact - however this would put the financial burden back on to the taxpayer which prevents the gov for acting 'morally'
I think this will eventually be challenged in European court
P.S. not interested in any womens opinions on this which will obviously be selfish and totally inconsiderate and devoid of any moral compass
Thank God for contraception. I bet your sperm swims backwards dunnit.:D
I am not having a go, I just wonder why you kept bringing up the unprotected comment when this situation could arise just as simply with all the precautions taken.
If BOTH parties use protection then the chances of a pregnancy resulting go down to zero or thereabouts
I am not having a go, I just wonder why you kept bringing up the unprotected comment when this situation could arise just as simply with all the precautions taken.
I'm just going with stats I guess, more babies result from unprotected sex than with protected sex.
Either way, it's a joint venture between the man and women that produces a kid, therefore it's a joint responsibility.
As the biological onus is on the woman, and the child rearing also, the least a man can do is provide financially for his child, especially if he does not want to be involved with taking care of the child.
The premise of the thread is that the guy doesn't want a child.
My goodness, you really are one of those mysogynist gays.
Rubbish.
I have no sympathy for anyone who gets "accidentaly" pregnant.
I don't make excuses for irresponsible decisions.
My mum chose to have six children with a man she knew didn't bond with children who was a poor father. None of my three grown sisters have children or abortions.
It is not impossible to not sleep around.
I am the product of a womans stupid decision. but at least she didn't abort me.
Comments
That still doesn't put the onus on the man though.
If I was straight I certanly would be trying to avoid having children until I had the resources to support them.
Apparently women are less willing for anonymous sex but however they still manage to get pregnant with an aquaintance or on off boyfriend.
the situation reeks of irresponsibility.
It really is a ridiculous situation, and I am not privvy to all the details - I was only a young'un myself when the court things happened. I know after they moved and he tried a few other things through the courts with little success, he stopped paying and then within a couple of weeks those people were on him for not paying.
Luckily two of his kids are over 18 now and he gets to see them a lot more so a slightly happy ending. But still the system is not perfect
Two people have sex. Two people create a baby. Two people take responsibility.
What does guys having unprotected sex with these women reek of?
If the man is unemployed or underage he is unlikely to be able to fund the baby and so the tax payer will be paying.
I agree that a child should have adequate parental attention and mixed sex influences.
I would see that as my responsibility if I was the one pregnant.
People just seem to live in their own different worlds with their own values.
I just can't symapthise and probably vice versa.
I sincerely hope the OP never gets 'lucky' again, whether he is a Troll or not
Why do you keep saying unprotected sex??
What if it was protected sex, is the situation changed at all?
Because I guess that protected sex results in much less babies ... but I could be wrong?
As was mentioned in the abortion thread it is the womans body that the child is dependent on the mans input could be a twenty second fumble.
The biological onus is unfortuantely on the woman.
However I do believe in fully supporting single parents and their offspring. I am not for ostracising.
As the biological onus is on the woman, and the child rearing also, the least a man can do is provide financially for his child, especially if he does not want to be involved with taking care of the child.
Much less yes, but still babies are produced.
I am not having a go, I just wonder why you kept bringing up the unprotected comment when this situation could arise just as simply with all the precautions taken.
I know. Even with MY terrible troll-feeding habit, this one's just...
...it's actually not even worth finishing that sentence for.
My goodness, you really are one of those mysogynist gays, aren't you? You say, 'if you were straight, you would not have children until you had the resource to support them' but women get pregnant willy-nilly, I'd like to point out that other men are still involved. It takes two, you know. I hate this attitude that women decide when they will get pregnant.
Your attitude is disgusting.
Thank God for contraception. I bet your sperm swims backwards dunnit.:D
If BOTH parties use protection then the chances of a pregnancy resulting go down to zero or thereabouts
I'm just going with stats I guess, more babies result from unprotected sex than with protected sex.
Either way, it's a joint venture between the man and women that produces a kid, therefore it's a joint responsibility.
Too many men try to get women to marry them by getting them pregnant. It just doesn't work on some of us.:)
The premise of the thread is that the guy doesn't want a child.
Where have the pro abortion lobby gone now.
The woman can have an abortion...
If she wants to, for sure.
And a man can have a vasectomy before he goes sleeping around
I thought you were the religious nut
Only Joking - honest just having fun in an hostile environment (which by the way can also prevent pregnancies
Lots of women don't agree with abortion.
I'm pro-choice but personally I wouldn't have one unless there was medical need.
I think I know where this is angling - next is the bloke doesn't have a say in the abortion
Rubbish.
I have no sympathy for anyone who gets "accidentaly" pregnant.
I don't make excuses for irresponsible decisions.
My mum chose to have six children with a man she knew didn't bond with children who was a poor father. None of my three grown sisters have children or abortions.
It is not impossible to not sleep around.
I am the product of a womans stupid decision. but at least she didn't abort me.