Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

[cocolia42]

paarsurrey said: ↑
What is the check on such fraudulent women?
Regards

Well, the men could adopt the birth-control measures themselves so that such women don't defraud them. Can't they?
Regards

Well, so can the women, can't they? So I guess the women are being taken advantage of. They made the choice to have unprotected sex. Deal with the consequences.

For the record, my first child was out of wedlock. I never asked for child support. I took care of her myself the first 2 1/2 years. Then I got married and my husband took care of her for the next 2 1/2 years. Then her father came into her life. I still never asked for child support. He was there when he was there, and not when he wasn't. He helped when he helped and not when he didn't. And life went on.

 

[cocolia42]

It isn't really all that pervasive of a thing actually. Unless the woman in question is hitting up extremely wealthy men it's not as if they get all that much. Child support is based on income. It is rarely ever enough to really make a huge difference. Often one is looking at anywhere between $50 to $400 a month in child support. Far less than what it takes to raise a child, let alone live off. It's not as if one can make headway by having children. The thought is ludicrous.

I disagree. If I only had one child, my husband would have to pay over $1,000 a month.
The women who make "careers" out of this know which men to look for.
I have someone in my family who got 30,000 a year in child support from 2 different men for 3 children.

 

[McBell]

This^^^
I've seen similar scenarios play out all too commonly.
Because women "have the power", in the USA, when it comes to child raising. Women can off their progeny if they want to, it doesn't matter what the father wants. And if they decide not to they can demand child support, doesn't matter what the father wants. They don't always get it, but the law is on their side.
Tom

why is it, you think, women have that power?

 

[columbus]

why is it, you think, women have that power?

Because, in that regard, this is a feminist culture, not an egalitarian culture.
Tom

 

[savagewind]

Because, in that regard, this is a feminist culture, not an egalitarian culture.
Tom

FYI the paying of child support is not for the mother. It is for the child.

 

[McBell]

Because, in that regard, this is a feminist culture, not an egalitarian culture.
Tom

so the fact that for several hundred years before feminism the woman was supposed to stay home popping out kids and raising them had nothing to do with it?
It is all because of feminism?

 

[savagewind]

I think the laws about abortion cannot be attributed only to the feminist movement. I think some people are afraid of laws which govern a person's own body.

 

[Draka]

I disagree. If I only had one child, my husband would have to pay over $1,000 a month.
The women who make "careers" out of this know which men to look for.
I have someone in my family who got 30,000 a year in child support from 2 different men for 3 children.

As I said though, it really isn't all that pervasive. Most men in this country do not make such exorbitant amounts. One would have to look for and manipulate wealthier men to come out on top of the financial equation. The average for child support in this country is about $5000 per year. One simply cannot live on that. Deduct food, clothing childcare and/or school, medical, dental, and the numerous other little things that you just put into the child and there isn't a whole lot left. Certainly not enough to benefit from by having a child. The ones that could make out well are the rare minority. Thus, like I said, not a pervasive problem.

 

[columbus]

FYI the paying of child support is not for the mother. It is for the child.

That is how it is supposed to be, not necessarily how it is. But it isn't relevant to my post at all. A mother can decide her progeny is a "clump of cells" and kill him/her. But the father has no rights. If the mother decides he/she is a child, the father is on the hook for a couple decades of child support, sent to the mother with no accountability.
That's how it is.
Tom

 

[columbus]

so the fact that for several hundred years before feminism the woman was supposed to stay home popping out kids and raising them had nothing to do with it?
It is all because of feminism?

How is that relevant to my post?
Tom

 

[McBell]

How is that relevant to my post?
Tom

I submit it has much more to do with why women have that power than feminism.

Now if you cannot see the relevence, I fail to understand how we are going to be able to have a productive discussion about it.

 

[savagewind]

That is how it is supposed to be, not necessarily how it is. But it isn't relevant to my post at all. A mother can decide her progeny is a "clump of cells" and kill him/her. But the father has no rights. If the mother decides he/she is a child, the father is on the hook for a couple decades of child support, sent to the mother with no accountability.
That's how it is.
Tom

It actually is relevant I think. It is because you attribute the paying of child support to "a feminist culture".

Because, in that regard, this is a feminist culture, not an egalitarian culture.
Tom

But in reality providing for a child is a humanitarian deed.

 

[columbus]

Now if you cannot see the relevence, I fail to understand how we are going to be able to have a productive discussion about it.

I don't think we will have one. You are talking about the "several hundred years before feminism" and I am talking about today. There is not much common ground.
Tom

 

[columbus]

It actually is relevant I think. It is because you attribute the paying of child support to "a feminist culture".

No I'm not. I am pointing out that one parent has rights and the other doesn't. I personally think we, as a culture, could do a lot better at enforcing the rights of children. But it would mean parents give up a lot of personal freedom.
Tom

 

[McBell]

I don't think we will have one. You are talking about the "several hundred years before feminism" and I am talking about today. There is not much common ground.
Tom

and here I thought we were talking about WHY women have that power...
You claim it is because of feminism.
I say it is because of the hundred of years women were to stay home popping out and raising kids.

I wonder what reason you have for women having that power before feminism.....

 

[savagewind]

No I'm not. I am pointing out that one parent has rights and the other doesn't. I personally think we, as a culture, could do a lot better at enforcing the rights of children. But it would mean parents give up a lot of personal freedom.
Tom

I agree with you.

Take away personal freedom from one group (parents) and then what? I am sure there are powerful people who will prevent the dominos from falling.

 

[columbus]

I wonder what reason you have for women having that power before feminism.....

We don't seem likely to have much of a discussion.
I never said that women had that power before feminism and RvW etc.
Since I am not inclined to discuss the straw men you want to talk about I don't think we are going to talk about this much.
Tom

 

[McBell]

We don't seem likely to have much of a discussion.
I never said that women had that power before feminism and RvW etc.
Since I am not inclined to discuss the straw men you want to talk about I don't think we are going to talk about this much.
Tom

You claim the reason women have that power is because of feminism.
Seeing as women have had that power BEFORE feminism and BEFORE RvW, your insistence that feminism is the reason they have that power just does not hold any water.

Now if you want to dodge the discussion by falsely accusing me of strawman, so be it.
It is your credibility, not mine.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I hate this. I think the father should have the same rights - if that's the right word for it.

I disagree. The father (assuming the man decides to stick around) doesn't have to bear the same level of responsibility or physical risk during a pregnancy as the woman. It's not a man's body which has to nurture the foetus (and later the baby) and help it to grow.

I mean, if a woman can decide to abort her child despite the father wanting to keep it, then why can't a man walk away from all responsibility for that child if the mother decides to keep it?

But that's precisely what happens already. Men walk away leaving the woman all the responsibility and only her resources to raise the child while trying to work and afford a decent life for it. Such things like paying alimony are not just to stop the irresponsible man, they're also to secure the child's future. These laws were brought in because, for centuries, men would rut women they weren't married to and sire ********. The annoying thing about ******** was that recognising them could seriously mess up things like inheritance, and caring for them and the mother can complicate marriages, one's position at court, in business negotiations or in power plays. Also, caring for the child and mother (who might be nothing more than a prostitute the bloke took a tumble with) would add extra financial pressure with practically no return (******** back then had no legal rights). Laws requiring the father to pay for the upkeep was the legal way of righting the wrongs of a father abandoning a mother and their child for one reason or another and leaving them to fend for themselves.

Watch the first two seasons of the TV series Game of Thrones for a rough idea about how ******* children (particularly those of nobility) would have been treated in older societies.

Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.

No. No. No. Women do not lose or forsake their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant and they are not property or chattels for men to control as they please. Pregnant women are not walking incubators with no rights or sense of self. They're human beings with needs. This is the 21st Century, not the 1st.

Edit: I love how that one instance of '********' was censored but the others weren't.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Wow! I didn't think for one moment, that you could into a debate about what murder was. You learn something new every day.
The scripture in depth says, do not inflict violence, kill, or murder. Will that do?

Except when God specifically tells people to do it?

Killing is wrong.

Do you eat, drink, take antibiotics, etc? Everything single thing you do kills SOMETHING.

That is a story of Yisrael which is an example of man. we still kill. We still defend it. It is still wrong.

Before Cain killed Abel, no one mentions that killing is wrong. As he acted prior to the rule being given, did he sin?

I find it far more interesting that God's prophet sanctioned and caused the death of 42 kids using bears.

For kids who were just being trolls. Is the sign of a prophet of God that he can't take a childish insult?

I like Awkward Moments. In their illustrated book, the "bears" are drawn differently than what we are accustomed to thinking about. I doubt two manly furry men would bother massacring so many kids though, LOL.

Because it is the one place we can all go to check things. It is the one physical relationship that we have with God. How can you hear lest the preacher proclaim, as it is written.

How did people talk to God prior to the writing of the scriptures?

You can know that something is fact without being able to prove something can't you? How do you prove to someone that they are alive if they are comatose. To prove is to make it fact, right?

Comas and levels of consciousness have measurable meanings. We nurses know how to use them.

Sure it is wrong.
If one's country is at war with another who is an aggressor, then one has to join in killing, because it is proper occasion.
Regards

I find wars to be the solution for the intellectually lazy.