Single parent question.


P

Pat P

Snake Lady said:
You are tarring them all with the same brush!! The problem is no worse or
better than it was in the sixties or seventies, but you lot are reacting
like teenage pregnancy was some sort of new affliction!! Sex happens
accidents happen get over yourselves!!
I just SAID " It`s the ones who are (scrounging teenagers) that we are
protesting about. With the ones who aren`t, there`s no problem to discuss!
How on earth is that tarring them with the same brush? Or maybe you`re one
of the immigrants who doesn`t understand English properly.

Pat P
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Pat P

Natural Philosopher wrote:-
A great improvement. IMHO.

For preserving lowlife.
Unfortunately you`re dead right there! You only have to look around every
time you go out. (Not to mention reading that last little tirade from a
"Legal Fan" - a perfect demonstration of the poor vocabulary common to some
of today`s ill educated yobs!)

Pat P
 
P

Pat P

Cynic said:
So do I - but that wasn't the question I asked.
That`s the only possible sensible answer, all the same. But OK, COMPELLED
to be married or have a permanent relationship, if you must.

Pat P
 
P

Pat P

Snake Lady said:
Who says they haven't got that? Some men panic when told they are about
to be a dad and leave, does this mean every girl whose partner has left
should have an abortion? This law has not yet been passed, and probably
wont ever get passed, especially as you and Derek are not in charge of
anything!!
What a shame we`re not, Derek. Wouldn`t the world be a better place!

Pat P
 
P

Pat P

Alex Heney said:
Agreed.

Although not all single mothers by choice are in hat position. Some
can well afford to bring up their child themselves.
They are a different case entirely. As long as they can afford it and cost
the rest of us nothing they`ll get no argument from me - apart from the one
that in the usual way, it`s always best for any child to have two loving
parents.

Pat P
 
S

Snake Lady

Pat P said:
I just SAID " It`s the ones who are (scrounging teenagers) that we are
protesting about. With the ones who aren`t, there`s no problem to
discuss! How on earth is that tarring them with the same brush? Or maybe
you`re one of the immigrants who doesn`t understand English properly.

Pat P
Or maybe you just want the world to be full of middle class, goody two
shoes types, who do as they are told, this country has always been full of
rebels, its too late now to try getting rid of anyone that doesn't toe your
line!![/QUOTE]
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mike

Derek said:
Ok The point is though 2 adults living in same house, with one or more
children. do you not think this should always be treated as a family
unit ie that the man must always be supporting the children.
And even if he is not, then clearly he should be.
Even if they're not his children? Even if he's just a lodger? What
if the two adults are both female? Who'll support the children then?
 
C

Cynic

That`s the only possible sensible answer, all the same. But OK, COMPELLED
to be married or have a permanent relationship, if you must.
That would be a charter for the government to penalise married
couples. Whenever tax and/or employment breaks have penalised married
couples, it has resulted in people deciding not to get married in
order to obtain the tax advantages etc. And the opposite also takes
place.

So instead of *compelling* people to get married, we could simply make
it a lot more advantageous for a couple to get married rather than
just living together. And maybe a bit more difficult to get divorced.

One thing that would be a Draconian measure, but one that I would
consider seriously, it to stop all *additional* benefits to single
parents. If that results in a parent being unable to provide for the
child, then the child could be taken into care the same as any child
where the parent is unable or unwilling to provide for its minimum
needs.

I do not believe that such a measure would actually result in more
chilren being taken into care, but I do believe it will result in less
deliberate single parenthood, and more cases where the single parent
finds a way to support themself and the child without state help.
 
C

Cynic

Fair enough, so what happens if the woman has little or no money?
She can then turn to the state and then the state will help.
If the state did not help, it's the child that will suffer.
As I stated in a previous post, if the woman insists on having a child
despite knowing that she does not have the means to adequately provide
for the child, the child should be taken into care & put up for
adoption the same as any other case of severe neglect.

There are plenty of couples who have sufficient means to raise a child
but are unable to have one, and are desperate to adopt. The adoption
criteria should also be lowered. Why make the criteria for adoption
any more exacting than the criteria to conceive your own child without
danger of it being taken into care?
 
C

Cynic

No but the men that get the women pregnant need to take their responsibilities
seriously.
If the men that have sex with women don't want their partner to get pregnant,
they need to understand the meaning of: "birth control"
"B:birth control" is not just for the woman to think about.
If the woman has told the man that she has taken adequate precautions,
it is not unreasonable for the man to believe that adequate
precautions have been taken and no further action on his part is
necessary. After all, if my wife tells me that she has already bought
enough milk, I don't buy a few pints on the way home from work just to
be sure.

If it turns out that the woman has deliberately deceived the man, I do
not see why the man should have any responsibility. If it is a
genuine accident (the contraception failed, or the woman genuinely
forgot to take the pill), then the fallback is the "morning after"
pill, which IIUC can be used after they discover that she is pregnant,
or an early abortion. But note that terminating the pregnancy is a
decision that can *only* be made by the woman. The man has no say in
the matter. Nor can the man insist that his child should be carried
to term. Thus it is an unequal situation that needs to be resolved.

If the woman refuses to terminate against her partner's wishes, I do
not see why he should have to pay for something that he does not want,
and which does not *have* to happen.

It is the woman's sole decision, therefore IMO it is her sole
responsibility as well.

If OTOH the man *also* agrees that the baby should be carried to term,
*then* he should take his share of the raising of the child. Perhaps
the man should make a written statement of his wishes at the time the
pregnancy is discovered so that the woman cannot later say, "I would
never have had the child if I had thought that you would not support
it," and the man cannot later say, "I didn't want you to have the
child in the first place."
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

justingreen

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:40:40 +0100, "Derek Hornby"


Is there a reason why you start threads that are cross posted to a
multitude of NG's? I have seen you do this at least twice in the last
24 hours and at first I thought it was children on holiday but
apparently you are a regular poster. What ever is the matter with you?
Are you seriously trying to wreck usenet?
justin
 
M

me

It's irrelevant where a case was heard.
It would appear you may have a problem with your news reader.
A close look at headers will show that I didn't start a new thread,
I did however forget to type in the words:
(was birth control) when I changed the subject line title.
I do apologise for that mistake.
So I did not even type in the news groups, i wanted the post to go to the
same groups that had the same discussion thread.



It really doesn't matter what you call me simply because I am well used to
your rudeness, and your way of trying to start a childish argument
with me, personally.
As I say the first post from myself with subject line:
"£50,000 benefit single mother did she really break the rules"
is not, was not, a new thread, but rather it's a change of subject for an
existing thread.
So I Decided to keep the "to line" unchanged.
You also started the cross posted birth control thread:-(
 
T

The Wanderer

It's irrelevant where a case was heard.
Que?

It would appear you may have a problem with your news reader.
Oh no I don't, see below
A close look at headers will show that I didn't start a new thread,
Did I say you had? I asked you why you posted to Ngs in East ANglia when
the subject line had *no* bearing on thos groups.
I did however forget to type in the words:
(was birth control) when I changed the subject line title.
I do apologise for that mistake.
Yes, it is you that is the problem.
So I did not even type in the news groups, i wanted the post to go to the
same groups that had the same discussion thread.
Even when it is OT for those NGs?
It really doesn't matter what you call me simply because I am well used to
your rudeness, and your way of trying to start a childish argument
with me, personally.
Don't flatter yourself, you're not worth the effort. I *do* get exasperated
when I see some of your highly polarised and bigotted drivel in NG's where
it doesn't belong. If I wanted to pick an argument with you, I'd follow you
around every NG where you post. I've actually tried offering you friendly
advice when I first came across you, but you declined to take it.
As I say the first post from myself with subject line:
"£50,000 benefit single mother did she really break the rules"
is not, was not, a new thread, but rather it's a change of subject for an
existing thread.
Bull shit does not baffle my brain! I suggest you google for netiquette and
spend a little while learning how to make posts properly. Hint, look for
'RFC'.

My news reader handles that quite correctly, as a new thread. It is you
that is the problem. Oh, and *don't* have the temerity to come back and
suggest that I KF you. This is usenet; *you* have no rights here more than
anybody else.
So I Decided to keep the "to line" unchanged.
Derek
See above. It is you that is the problem.
 
T

The Wanderer

1. How many posters have x-posted in past few days to the news groups you
are reading this posting now?
But we're not talking about other posters. We're talking about why you
started a new thread (and a new thread it is{1], no matter how much you try
to prevaricate) and crossposted it to two completely irrelevant NGs.
2. why complain about x-posting if/when you do it yourself?
I rarely cross-post and then only to relevant NGs.
3. It seems it's *you* not I, that is baiting for an off topic argument.
Bull shit. Don't flatter yourself, you're not worth the effort.
as I see you simply want to argue about me, personally, ignore others that
post same way as myself.

I note lots of x-postings in:

"Single parent question" but I can't find any complaints from you,
about any of the posters there, so this is clear proof you just
want to argue with me, personally.
Bull shit. You won't see a single contribution from me within that thread,
but this isn't about that thread, this about a new thread started by you
and posted to two quite irrelevant NGs.[2] You were careless. *You* are at
fault.
But guess what, I won't play your game.

Derek
(follow-ups set: k.local.east-anglia)
No, I don't subscribe to those silly little games. FU's reset where this
discussion belongs.

[1] Hint: look for 'RFC'.
[2] Hint: look for 'nettiquette'
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Pat said:
Natural Philosopher wrote:-


Unfortunately you`re dead right there! You only have to look around every
time you go out. (Not to mention reading that last little tirade from a
"Legal Fan" - a perfect demonstration of the poor vocabulary common to some
of today`s ill educated yobs!)

Pat P
It has been noted in India that the biggest counter to unwanted
pregnancy has been the education of women.

It seems that educated people have less babies.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

The Invalid

From The Times 10 August 206

A woman who claimed nearly £50,000 in benefits as a single
mother has told Cardiff Crown Court that she did not declare any
information about her live-in partner because they did not have sex.
Mark Evans, QC, the Recorder, has indicated that he will fine Jayne
Taleb, 44, and order her to return the money.
Why are you posting this here
uk.legal is the proper place, are you now just trolling?
 
T

The Natural Philosopher

Snake said:
Or maybe you just want the world to be full of middle class, goody two
shoes types, who do as they are told, this country has always been full of
rebels, its too late now to try getting rid of anyone that doesn't toe your
line!!
Sadly there is very little for an uneducated working class labourer and
his partner to do in this world anymore.

I haven't seen a great call for hunter gatherers either. Which is
basically where a sink estate is at..
 
S

Snake Lady

The Natural Philosopher said:
Sadly there is very little for an uneducated working class labourer and
his partner to do in this world anymore.

I haven't seen a great call for hunter gatherers either. Which is
basically where a sink estate is at..
God but you're cynical, if you open your eyes and really look at the world
around you, you will be surprised at the diversity of life contained
therein!!
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Alan Hope

Derek Hornby goes:
Time to put you in the kill file with your mate ~Turtill.
Gosh.

If we take a look back on his thread we find that all your posts are
simply aimed at an off topic argument with myself.
YOu have not joined in any of the debate with any of the other posters.
Right. Run along now.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top