|
|
|
|
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:41:46 PM |
Do men get a free ride for not taking responsibility for spreading their seed?
It takes two to tango unless a woman was raped the woman is just as responsible. If she doesn't want to get pregnant then they should cross their legs.
propose castrating deadbeat dads, drug dealers, rapists and molesters
What about the falsely accused rapists and molesters? Cops have know to lie about a suspect to get promotions.
I have to agree requiring people on welfare to get drug tests and require women to use birth control if they have more than 1 child.
You would be shocked how many well educated good hard working people are on welfare, it is ignorant thinking everyone on welfare is lazy. People nowadays have to cheat on welfare in Ontario since they barely have enough for rent, food and telephone. They are required in Ontario, Canada to look for work, they have to actually have proof by handing in reports where they applied etc. I don't know what happened to work for welfare, I think that would be a great idea for people claiming can't find a job. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/11/2008 9:27:11 PM | there's a few problems with "work for welfare" programs. first off, you would have to assume that the government has numerous job openings for these people. and after you realize that the jobs are already filled, the only plausible way to give these people jobs (most are untrained, uneducated btw), would be to take the jobs away from the people already doing them. there's way too many people already on welfare for the government to even bother finding them work, because in the end it will just cause the people who are already doing their jobs to become unemployed, or at the very least lessen their income. every little task that you think has openings doesn't....janitors, garbage men, even street cleaning....those jobs are all filled. maybe there's a handful of openings, but there's more than a handful of people out of work. as soon as you start putting people on welfare ahead of people who aren't, the people who aren't will eventually end up on welfare because all the job openings are already getting filled, which just creates a cycle and ends up with everyone going on welfare to find work, after spending their savings and credit trying to maintain while looking for jobs. so it puts the economy in an even higher state of debt.
its really a no-win situation, but at the very least if they weren't blowing their money on drugs, and didn't keep breeding even after they've reached the point of poverty, the problems wouldn't get worse. we have to draw the line at some point, because if we keep allowing people to make terrible decisions for themselves and their families, the problem will become unmanageable and will eventually lead to chaos. the rich shouldn't have the burden of supporting the poor, and the government shouldn't allow the poor to become more of a burden for the rich. i find it impossible to rationalize how anybody could defend women who decide to breed when they can't even feed themselves. if you want a sickening image, really imagine the households that these children are being brought up in, and on top of it, imagine adding a few more children to the already cluttered rooms. this is one of the main reason why abortion will never be abolished. w/out it, the problem would be 100x worse. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 11:35:26 AM | wowsad:
i'm glad you realize this is a no win battle... i have been trying to tell ppl theres no way to win this argument...
and this part is able bodied ppl..the job situation is diff for all states/provinces but either way theres not enough jobs out there for everyone....no matter where you live...some require training and you may have to pay for that training...well if your pay checks are going to bills,kids,food whatever it is its gonna be hard to get that training...then being forced to go on welfare till things improve or so they can get the training they need...
then the abusers....well the problem with the baby poppers are its the women having them that are wrong but the kids are born already so they now need to help to live healthy...so the government give the women the necessary money to keep the kids stomachs full and clothed as they grow....even though they don't always use the money for what its suppose to be used for thats why they're getting it....the prob with the rest of the abusers are recites are not necessary so it gives them the chance to do this...if the recites were needed to get a check again then they be forced to cut back on habits....sometimes i feel in the baby poppers situations they should have to have recites for everything when baby bonus comes in so they are forced to give the child what it really needs instead of ripping of the system...if the recites don't add up then they're checks are put on hold till they talk to the worker about where the money is going...
now the disabled well some are stuck in the rut of literately not being able to work for whatever reason but there should be doctors documentation proving they can't work thats up to date...then the ones who could work but be limited to what they could do....those should have a program offered to get training then go into the job best for them...i still feel they should stay on the system if they feel they need it...in that case they have a schedule at work limited to how much they can make on welfare
there are many solutions to this but i don't think the government would ever do anything about it since there too lazy to care cause there rich and everyone else is paying for it... | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 11:37:43 AM | It appears to me that what could have been an intelligent discussion has clearly degenerated into a "flame-war", which is unfortunate.
The force with which an opinion is expressed is no adequate measure of how convincing it is. I, for one, do not find verbal 'bashings' all that edifying. I am not sure if the "bashers" think they are actually going to convince the "bashees" to change their minds simply by being insulting or vehement, and I am not sure if anyone else is more likely to be convinced.
chemistry, I cannot understand why you are defending Castro's régime. I have traveled there and seen it with my own eyes. Does that régime have real accomplishments to it's credit? Yes. A first-rate medical system by regional standards. A well-educated population. Vast reductions in the grinding poverty that is so common in the region. Resistance to U.S. hegemony, if you consider that a plus.
But the fact remains that it is a totalitarian state that denies basic freedoms to its population and keeps them prisoners in a more than metaphorical sense, chained to a corrupt bureaucracy that looks to perpetuate its power and privileges. The approval ratings you are talking about mean nothing in a place where freedom of speech does not meaningfully exist. The current 'socialist' system in Cuba is almost as evil as the corrupt régime it replaced, and it needs to go.
And wowsad, would you acknowledge something? It does not look like the U.S. economy (or the economy in any other Western country, for that matter) can create jobs for everyone. The least economically and socially competent are going to lose out. That's reality. It's all well and good to condemn someone for making bad decisions (drugs, too many children without means to support them), but if they do not have meaningful alternatives, what is left for them? Is the government to intervene more and more in their lives until they are basically treated like burdensome dependent children with no choices at all, even choices about how to poison and impoverish themselves? Your argument blames them for making bad choices, demands personal responsibility, yet proposes as a solution that their right to make choices be taken away?
Why shouldn't the rich have the burden of supporting the poor? Why shouldn't the government impose the burden of the poor on the rich?
More to the point, why should the rich not acknowledge the writing on the wall? If the rich do not take action to solve the problems, they only get worse. That burden is there, whether you like it or not.
The U.S. incarcerates a higher proportion of its population, and more people in absolute terms, than any other country on Earth. That is a FACT and it points to serious problems about which little or nothing effective is being done.
The government created property rights in the first place, and enforces them in the present. Any system that permits people to inherit wealth from their parents, and permits them to buy and sell, will inevitably create inequality that only gets worse and worse over time if something is not done periodically to help alleviate the situation.
What is wrong with redistributing the wealth a bit, so that you have a society where even the lowest feel like they have a common stake in it? | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 12:22:21 PM | sly, you're right about a lot of things, specifically the country not being able to generate enough jobs. part of the problem is the way this country insists on cheap labor from other countries, the other part is the way we insist on having cheap labor in our own country through illegal immigrant workers. i have a theory on what this has done to the psyche of the average american youth, but i live in long island and the theory is mainly based on what i see around here. kids are brought up thinking that the crap jobs, one example is food service, are meant for uneducated latinos. its almost like its wrong to work in front of a pizza oven, or a mcdonalds, and instead these kids seek internships which sometimes pay even less money, because of the status. that's one very small problem, but as they get older, they're less likely to take a job landscaping if they have to feed their family, and instead will remain unemployed longer, searching for a job of high status. people are growing up to become adults who don't have the instinct to make ends meet. instead they ride their credit through the roof, and sometimes end up part of the system, educated or not. this is slightly off topic, but this mindset is definitely part of the problem in my eyes.
however, i don't think that the government taking away a handful of bad choices a person can make while collecting welfare is at all taking their rights to live away. these people should be treated like a burden, because in reality, they are, and the government *can't* afford to take care of them if they continue to sabotage their own future. if welfare is really meant to be a stepping stone, a helping hand if you will, then that hand has to help them make better choices, because the choices they made so far led them to poverty.
i have more to say, but i'm running late for school..... | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 1:22:28 PM | [It appears to me that what could have been an intelligent discussion has clearly degenerated into a "flame-war", which is unfortunate. ]
yes i have noticed what its become and it is sad...i started this so everyone could share there views on the issue and hopefully some things would be cleared up....there is still a chance this could be a intelligent discussion if everyone can be nice and have an open mind to the diff situations....i know its hard...its hard for me to understand the harsh views but when i change the view i can see there argument too...so it a matter of how you look at the issues brought up....everyone for there own reason...but welfare ppl are not to blame its the government when it comes down to it....also some of the programs welfare offers are not the greatest either but at least its a start...everyone hits rock bottom at some point in life where they have to choose what is more important....welfare like working has its quirks and not much you can do about it other than have an open mind to each situation....also as noticed for each area its diff but eh what can ya do???
only thing anyone can do is share the opinions and discuss what could be done to make it fair for everyone...so lets try to be nice and have an open mind about this PLEASE!!
i don't want flaming happening i wanted to give everyone a chance to express there feelings in a nice manner so everyone can at least get along while discussing  | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 2:56:58 PM | | I dislike people on well fare. they are the downfall to our whole country! I think they should sit in jail until they can afford to take care of there selves. because I bust my ass at work everyday and I don't need welfare. grow up and get a job.....LOOSER! | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 3:03:13 PM |
I think they should sit in jail until they can afford to take care of there selves. Uhmmmm...
Not that I'm going to defend welfare recipients too much... but how the hell will this help?
How can a person possibly improve their lot in life by sitting away in a jail with very few opportunities afforded them?
Perhaps you should endeavour to expand your educational pursuits prior to condemning others... spelling and grammar are not your forte. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 3:12:59 PM |
I think they should sit in jail until they can afford to take care of there selves.
BRILLIANT!!! It probably costs more to jail someone than to give them public assistance. Plus, if they are in our already over-crowded jail system, then they will have to release people who actually belong there. OH WAIT -- they are all innocent -- just ask them!! | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 3:51:41 PM | "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-Benjamin Franklin
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
- Thomas Jefferson
| |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 6:50:57 PM | the responsibility of having a child lies solely on the mothers, because they have the right to get child support (or not), they have the right to terminate the pregnancy, and they also have the right to not have unprotected sex. while the responsibility of paying child support falls on the man, that is mainly enforced by the mother of the child. this could be changed by the government, and i'm not saying it shouldn't, but there is a huge difference between castrating men, and telling women that to receive payments, they have to be on birth control.
^^
and men have the right to not stick their**** in **** if they don't want to pay child support
the responsibility for having a child is now 50% upon both the mother and father... go over to the single parents forum where you will witness a growing number of single fathers caring for children
and *gasp!* some are indeed on welfare!
as for welfare work programs... have you been on one? do you teach one? then how do you know?
taking jobs from others... its no different then the average joe or jane all over the world taking a job from others whenever they hand in their resumes
its a dog eat dog world however please note;
ii just recently read in the news that employment is at a all time low in 30 yrs
something is working right
((currently researching just how much of our taxes go to welfare....)) | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 7:11:33 PM | I get the self-righteous attitudes of those who are successful and resent those who are not .... and those who would rather their tax dollars go into politicians pockets, fancy new government offices and structures and other extreme wastages. And I do understand how some abusers of the system deserve some of the hatred towards them ... BUT ... I, for one, cannot condemn every person who needs assistance for legitimate reasons, and cannot get out of their present circumstance.
Yes, I am a soft-hearted person ... sometimes even gullible ... but I would sure rather see tax dollars go for use of people in need instead of to the comforts of those who are in "power"... and their expense accounts, etc.
And the children of those less fortunate ... no matter if their parents are disabled and can't work ... OR if they are true lazy bums ... I don't like to see children suffer and go without any neccessities (and be treated like sh1t by all the other middle to upper class kids all their young lives. And what do we know about kids who have no self esteem, and have little chance of support or success? | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 7:38:13 PM | Welfare(Health & Human Services) is 25% of California's annual expenditures:
http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249561.html
There is a $11 billion deficit in California but nobody wants their program cut. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 9:12:54 PM | I ahve not finished reading all the posts yet but I have to say I find that those who think that on welfare you are getting a ton of money have never really had to go through poverty. I was on welfare breifly 2 years ago when I first had to return to staying home with my kids. My oldest 2 kids have disabilities and I was having difficulty finding a job that allowed me to work p/t for a decent wage and bring them with me since they need to be homeschooled. I have since found that, so I was only on welfare for a few months. It certainly is not a high amount of money, I receive $840 something a month to support 3 kids on. I do live in subsidized housing(rent based on wages) so I do work but due to my children's needs I can not work f/t outside of the house while they go to school/daycare. I suffer from the stigma associated with living in this housing. I currently have 4 children, and go for my tubal next week so it is not a case of having more babies to increase benefits etc. I work, pay taxes etc but live in subsidized housing. This place has been a life saver, without it I could not work the hours I do, and give my children what they need to grow to be productive adult citizens.
I do know of those that abuse teh system, my former MIL is one of those, my ex husband was raised while his mom was on welfare milking the system out of laziness. It makes me angry but since we never know the full situation of a family who are we to judge why they are using the system or a particular service? There are those who figure since I am a young healthy woman I should be out working f/t to afford somethig other than this housing, but they don't know what I go through with my kids, or what life was like before I started staying home wth them and taking them with me to work, they don't know about my son needing to be hospitalized inthe mental health ward and spening his 6th b-day there, they don't know about him wanting to commit suicide at the age of 7 because of bullies at school, they don't know about the learnign difficulties and dr's saying to make him literate and leave him be as he would never succeed. Since making the hard choice to accep the stigma, he has narly caught up with his peers in his education, no longer wants to die, receives all the psychological help he needs and has my full support daily. I am seen as lazy because I only work p/t, when if those same judgemental people lived one day in my life they would see that I wish I could be lazy. Until you know the intimate details of someone's life you have no excuse for judging them, whether they use welfare, live in subsidized housing or make tons of money. Shunning and judging helps no one. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 11:03:48 PM | 1. Welfare is for temporary assistance for those who fall upon hard times (i.e. laid off, looking for new job; recent divorce where a SAHM suddenly has to be the breadwinner; spouse dies & other parent has to look for second job). It's not to support you.
2. Having a/ child/ren you cannot afford makes you an irresponsible, unfit parent. No, I will not budge on this stance. Birth control is free. There are no excuses.
3. If I'm working so someone else doesn't have to, damn right I'm going to be judgmental.
There are those who figure since I am a young healthy woman I should be out working f/t to afford somethig
That's because you should be. You can give all the sob stories you want but you chose to have a child. You need to support him. The very least you can do is work a full time job like the rest of us.
I currently have 4 children
I highly doubt your struggles started after the 4th kid. You said your oldest two are disabled. Why on earth wouldn't you stop when you started struggling with the first one? Why are we responsible for your poor choices? | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/12/2008 11:48:12 PM | | First off as I said inmy post I temporarily used welfare for a couple months while I found a suitable jo, I do work, I cannot hold full time hours due to mey kids but I do work. As for my kids, They weren't diagnosed until after the 3rd arrived. At that time I was woring f/t time, my kids were in school and daycare. By the time my 4th arrived I had already gone back to school, graduated and found work that allowed me to work the hours needed, take my kids with me and still be home with them to school them they way they need. I do not use welfare. I live in subsidized housing yes, so my rentis based on income, but the fact is I still pay rent, earn a wge, and pay my bills without needing tax payers to do so. My point was that there is a stigma attached to it even though I am working and do the right things to raise my children. My oldest were born in my marriage, I didn't have them with plans of my marriage failing. But now that they are here I need to do the very best for them and that means working in lower wage job for fewer hours than I previously did and living in this housing. Sure I could go back to my old profession adn leave my kids for others to care for, which in the end costs taxpayers more because they are not getting the help they require and would not be able to be contributing members of socity as they get older. I think that making the choice to go into the line of work I did even if it means I need to live in this housing for a while is the best choice. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 1:00:15 AM | If you can afford your kids on working part time without assistance, then that's your choice. This is about welfare, though, and those who choose not to work or work as much when they CAN'T afford not to. You say you CAN'T work full time because of your kids, but you CAN, you CHOOSE not to. Most parents hold down fulltime jobs along with taking care of their kids. You say you got welfare for a few months while looking for a "suitable" job (that's a whole other can of worms right there, finding a "suitable" job instead of "any" job, but I digress...) which is what welfare is meant for, temporary assistance.
Personally, I work less than 29 hours a week, but that's because I get by fine on that income. It's all relative. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 4:38:08 AM | | Disabled kids usually need special care they are not typical kids. It would be hard to home school the kids and work full time as a single parent. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 8:56:06 AM |
Disabled kids usually need special care they are not typical kids. It would be hard to home school the kids and work full time as a single parent.
Exactly. I used welfare for a Temporary period of time, which was my point, that judging someone who has used it or is currently using it is fruitless unless you know all the initimate details of their lives. Having Children who require a parent to be with them practically 24/7 to make sure they are receiving a good education at home etc means my ability to work f/t 40 hours a week is not possible. Yes I CHOSE to rovide my children with the best opportunities for everything, which means for a temporary period of time I used Welfare. During this time my son was in the hospital children's mental ward for a couple weeks, and I had to quit the job I had working f/t to change my priorities and stay home with them while still earning an income. SO in my situation finding a suitable job was key, it had nothing to do with wanting to work or not, and everything to do with providing the children I have with the best outcome in life. Judging one harshly for that is not helpful at all. Lumping everyone who has required assistance into one lump group of those abusing the system is unfair to them, most people I know including myself went on welfare for a short period of time as a last resort to help our families in a time of transition, not because we want to be labelled with some stigma, or be lazy etc. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:39:22 AM | "Most parents hold down fulltime jobs along with taking care of their kids."
And at what cost? The one thing I regret is sending me laddo off to nursery and pre school care when he was so young, while I went out to work 10 hours a day and did my degree at the same time and as a single parent to boot. I missed out on so much. And me laddo was in the care of others for 10 hours a day.
Either way you cant win, either go to work all day and not see your kids or stay at home with them..either way some pr1ck will come along and have a go. | |
|
| |
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 12:09:27 PM | And at what cost? The one thing I regret is sending me laddo off to nursery and pre school care when he was so young, while I went out to work 10 hours a day and did my degree at the same time and as a single parent to boot. I missed out on so much. And me laddo was in the care of others for 10 hours a day.
Either way you cant win, either go to work all day and not see your kids or stay at home with them..either way some pr1ck will come along and have a go.
Staying home is fine.... if you can afford it. That's a choice you make when you decide to have kids. Either you want to stay home with them and you prepare and plan and save before you have them, or you decide to have them anyway and you work through it because you didn't prepare, plan, or save to cover staying home. You make the choice. My point is that it's not anyone else's responsibility to foot the bill because one decided to have kids and stay home with them when one couldn't afford to. | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 3:06:36 PM |
Staying home is fine.... if you can afford it. That's a choice you make when you decide to have kids. Either you want to stay home with them and you prepare and plan and save before you have them, or you decide to have them anyway and you work through it because you didn't prepare, plan, or save to cover staying home. You make the choice. My point is that it's not anyone else's responsibility to foot the bill because one decided to have kids and stay home with them when one couldn't afford to.
Prepare, plan and save? Interesting. You do know how much it costs to raise one average child dont you? We'd all be saving till we were 90!! | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 4:18:58 PM | piscescoda-According to your profile you are not a Mother so you would not know the hardships of raising a child alone nor would you know the difficulties of having a child with a disability and you said yourself you do not even work full time. Thank you for your input of the "judgemental people"
That's a choice you make when you decide to have kids. Either you want to stay home with them and you prepare and plan and save before you have them, or you decide to have them anyway and you work through it because you didn't prepare, plan, or save to cover staying home. You make the choice. ....and they lived happily ever after
 | |
|
| why judge people on welfare?
Posted: 3/13/2008 8:27:41 PM | i have a lot of opinions about what has been said on here, but i guess i'll just direct my limited free time to the person who quoted me.
and men have the right to not stick their**** in **** if they don't want to pay child support
the responsibility for having a child is now 50% upon both the mother and father... go over to the single parents forum where you will witness a growing number of single fathers caring for children
and *gasp!* some are indeed on welfare!
the responsibility for *having* a child is 100% on the mother, because she has the choice to... and i repeat... a) have an abortion, b) collect child support (if she even knows who the father is), and c) have sex.
its not 50/50 when 2 out of three responsibilities are held solely on the mothers end. once the woman has sex, gets pregnant, decides to have the child (because that's 100% mother's choice), and finally asks for child support (after breeding with a person who is fit to be a father.....)....then the responsibility becomes 50/50 split, but even then its really not.
do you know how hard it is for a father to have full custody of a child? first off, he'd have to find a woman to breed with that was such a degenerate that the state took the child away (which is very rare, even today), and then he would have to be fit to be the father, under the guidelines of the state, which are quite strict. they don't even take children away from drug addicts! a woman would have to be on her way to jail, literally, to lose her child. and when she gets out, i'm going to bet that if she wanted the child back there's a high chance of her getting it. the only way for a father to become the sole custodian of a child would be for the mother to either die, or give up her rights voluntarily.
i hate when people assume that men have equal rights just because they agree to having sex with a chick. if i knock a girl up, its her choice to keep it or not. if she doesn't want my involvement in the child's life, she won't ask for child support. hell, she may not even tell me she's pregnant. a lot of single mothers who don't receive child support from their children's father(s) don't even know who or where the father is, or they simply don't ask for money. it doesn't take much to get the child support, yet there's so many children w/out monetary support from their fathers. its the female's responsibility to claim child support. men have ABSOLUTELY no rights when it comes to breeding. we don't get to choose if the child's born, and we have to pay child support even if we don't want the child.... where are the fathers rights exactly? what makes this a 5o/50 split of responsibility? it baffles me. the ONLY choice that a man has is to have sex with a woman and use a condom, but women on the other hand have all the rights afterwards. why is it that there's so many single parents not claiming child support on welfare? if its the woman's responsibility to claim the child support, and keep track of who they had sex with to create that child, you'd think that more would....but they just don't, for whatever reason. and i don't care what the reason is....the guy's a criminal, he doesn't have a job, he's dangerous....whatever the excuse is, she had the right to have sex with him, OR NOT, and she chose to have sex with somebody who isn't even reliable enough to pay child support. and this is the man's fault?
this can be argued for all eternity, but it all boils down to the choices the women on welfare make, because they are the ones who are stuck raising the child they can't afford, and we are the ones paying for it. i most certainly blame the women for the situations they put themselves in.
oh, and my feelings on mens rights and whatnot? i think that there should be a choice a man makes when he is notified that he has a child on the way, or its already born. he signs a waver, giving up all his rights to that child, and in return he doesn't have to pay child support. if he wants visitation, and wants to be a part of that child's life, he has to pay. but i find it ridiculous that women can choose to have a child regardless of what the father says, and he as absolutely no say in the matter. if she can't afford it, and she's smart enough to abort the child, the father's off the hook. otherwise, he's stuck with the child.
and on the rare occurrence that the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does, maybe the reverse of the lack of men's rights could be that the woman is forced to have the child regardless, because after all..........its his child too. 50/50 rights don't sound so hot now, do they. imagine forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want... now why is it that a man can be forced to have a child he doesn't want. yes yes, its *her* body, but the child, under your 50/50 rights argument, is 50% his. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
