I've said it a billion times.. but i'll say it again..

I agree with every part of changing the laws except mandatory testing for all.

I really don't understand why you're panties are in a bunch.

The man and the women still bear the responsibility to protect themselves.

so get over it

There are some advantages to dating a single mom...

[1]- You can still spend lot's of time at the bar. This is because she will have time she needs to spend with her kid(s) (and possibly do stuff with the kid's bio-father(s) )
[2]- You can spend lot's of time at your buddy's place. This is because unless your buddy's like kids, they will not come visit you at her place, or when she and her kid(s) are at your place...
[3]- Xbox, Ps2, hey, some of those kids are damn good... They'll whip your ass and they are ALWAYS willing to play...
[4]- You get more time off work. That's because you get to catch lot's of illnesses from the kids that they bring home from school. Mumps 'nuff said...
[5]- There's nothing quite so satisfying as having really good loud screaming sex with her, when you know her Ex is on the front porch about to knock on the door to pick up the kid(s).
[6]- If they are old enough, you have someone to go fishing with.
[7]- Kids are a great excuse to go and see that new disney movie that your buddy's would never go to see but that you secretly want to see, but you'll tell them you were 'forced' to go... (Hey, I even enjoyed some of the Pokemon movies...)

What do you mean by that? An inanimate object cannot debate.

If you made such a poor decision choosing to have babies with a man who left you what makes you think you can make better decisions now ?








What is in it for the guy here ?

What kind of woman has or chooses to keep a child knowing that they won't have a father?

I will add another reason. Sex education, too many seem to think the pull out method works and rely on this or tell their friends to. I have now seen several posts from 20 year old range that they believe it works, we had sex education in high school and that was years ago. Whats happening now? Too busy sucking face at the back of the classroom to learn or what?

I don't lie, I don't cheat or steal, I have a job, at time two jobs, my own car, I pay my own bills, I'm not that bad off.

I don't have my ged or hsd, should that keep me from dating as well? You people act like I'm just blowing off all of my problems to date.

Some Jehovahs Witnesses recently left a copy of bible stories for children on my doorstep.
So i thought okkkk, i guess thats nice of them, spirituality is good for children, even though i have recently took initiation into the Dianic tradition and left Abrahamic religion behind, and normally do not care for the door to door religion salespeople.

So i handed my daughter the book, and told her why not read it out loud to her little brother, so they can both enjoy it.
Silly me, i thought thew book would be filled with sweet little things like "Jesus loves the children of the word" and stuff like that.
So my daughter approached me warily, book in hand, and said that the book is scary and she doesnt like it and that it will make Charles cry, she looked like she wanted to cry herself.

So i went through the book, it was filed with SO CALLED CHILDRENS STORIES of rape, murder, violence, torture, snakes, jealousy, bigotry, hatred, and sending out a big ole message that anyone who doesnt believe in one rigid way is "BAD" and thus deserves whatever atrocities they get.
So i told he her book is just a fiction book, and a very bad evil book at that.
She asked me seriously "I thought God loved people", i was like yeah i thought so to,
She asked "do we HAVE to believe in him"?
So i told her of course not.
She says will i go to hell?
I told her an atheist doesnt believe in hell thus thats a moot point.
She asked if she can be an atheist, i told her of course she can.
She seems happy with this.
My child is not A SHEEP. A leader, not a follower. Couldnt be MORE proud. If next week she wants to be a Buddhist, Jew, Wiccan, or Taoist, or go back to Catholicism, thats fine also. Long as nobody is sacrificing animals or hurting others, do as ye will.

Oh boy im getting a backlash though.
Is condoing atheism really all that awful?
I wolud prefer her to take a more spiritual path, but i amnot her and she is not me, thus i give my loving permission for her to believe in whe wants to.

I have tried to discuss this with family and close friends, but ended up bombarded by everyone from my mother in law from from the teacher to her estranged bio-father on how im poisioning her by telling her it is ok tio be an atheist.


IMO, the bible stories she has been exposed to are far more poisionious.
Yeah every kid loves a good tale of rape and murder before bed.
Sweet dreams honey!!!!!
Why not just pass out porn and the Satanic bible while at it/ couldnt be any WORSE than what the Christian soldiers have passed out.

Does anyone else think the bible is a disgusting book not for for children whatsoever?

FS I'm bored these forums haven't been as interesting since u left glad that ur back....

I was just playing devil's advocate for the most part. I think that's going to be the initial reaction by most women but say when my great grand-daughter goes and has a child it'll just be a routine part of having a baby. But then again maybe she'll skip herself the drama and go to a sperm bank like I should have.

Like on the premise mandatory DNA testing sounds like a good thing. Everyone makes sure that the right people are responsible for the right child... like what more could you want.

But then someone says something that I respond to. About keeping whores in line or outing whores and giving them the scarlet A and they can be out on the streets living in poverty with their **stard child. I don't think a man should be responsible for a child that isn't his but I think as a society we are responsible for all children.

Biology doesn't matter much to me. Watched the man that claimed to love me and his child turn his back on his own flesh and blood and has gone out of his way not to provide anything for his child so I have to pick up the slack and do double duty to make sure my child is happy and well taken care of. A man that has no regard to his responsibility. And you know what that's fine that's how he was raised to be irresponsible and childish. And I pay for his irresponsibility so does my daughter because she doesn't have a loving father in her life. Positive role models yes but no dad. I don't think men, women deserve protection from their own stupidity but children deserve protection. Adults make foolish decisions
There are a lot of irresponsible and childish people who are immature and selfish seems to be a common trend of our modern day society. So I think the government should step in and provide where the parent is unwilling or unable to make sure children don't go without. But nobody wants that everyone just wants mandatory DNA testing to weed out the bad lying women rather then working for the common good.
I'm biased I've admited that its also a gender issue. Some women aren't going to view mandatory DNA testing the same as some men do for whatever reasons

I've promoted Universal Day care as I've seen it would benefit children much more then mandatory DNA testing would but then I guess I have different priorities then "finding the daddy". Because no matter what laws you have in place you can't make a guy be a good dad.

This grandma is doing a great thing keeping her grandkids safe, whilst dealing with a daughter she loves who is damaging herself and her children.

I don't like that because I'm a woman that has had a baby I might be irresponsible and not know who the father was because I had been with more then one man at the conception period. I'm sorry but I don't like that because I'm not one of those women that would be with more then one man at a time and I might not know who my baby daddy is. I'm no saint but I like to spread out my partners a lil more then that. 2nd thing I don't like the implication that I'm a liar or unfaithful to my partner because we decided to have a child.

I think some posters are seeing it as a way to control women's sexuality and I don't think it would work but there is the aspect of shaming the woman point in case look at how many times the word whore has come up.

^^^Of course (sarcasm). Another one of those terrible things men want.... but the children are the benefactors. With DNA testing the real father pays support; not the duped father.
Why you have a problem with that is beyond me.

You can't honestly deny that a benefit of mandatory DNA testing means that women's sexual behavior is going to be controlled.

I don't support mandatory testing because I believe it DOES infringe on the rights of people as laid out by our constitution against unwarranted search and it operates on an assumption of guilt of ALL parties instead of testing only those where guilt is under suspicion. This does NOT mean, in any way, that I support duping men, that I think it's ok to cheat on one's partner, or that I think children don't have a right to know their father and have him in their life. But it also isn't the government's job to rule our PERSONAL lives. This is where one's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY comes in.

We already have legislation that allows a man to ask for a paternity test if he doubts the child is his. If you CHOOSE upon the birth of your child to take on the responsibility without that test, that's your prerogative, and you have every right to do so. If it means that much to you to KNOW definitively the child is yours, then GET THE DAMN TEST as you already have the right to do!

I wanted to add that there seem to be a lot of people who feel abortion is a good alternative to shed the responsibility for having created an unwanted pregnancy.

Obviously, something like this is a very personal choice, to be made by each individual according to their beliefs. I'm not advocating or discouraging abortion. I just think it's important for the people that think it's 'no big deal' to have the facts.

Aside from the cost (I'm thinking it's around $500 to have the procedure, assuming there are no complications ~ Pretty hefty fee for a few hours of recreational sex, no?) and the moral dilemma women face in deciding to do so, there are some serious health risks involved, including:
•Complications of anesthesia
•Postabortion triad (ie, pain, bleeding, low-grade fever)
•Hematometra
•Retained products of conception
•Uterine perforation
•Bowel and bladder injury
•Failed abortion
•Septic abortion
•Cervical shock
•Cervical laceration
•Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC)

The percentage of women experiencing these complications ranges from 2% to 50%, depending on how far along in the pregnancy she is when she makes the decision to abort. In addition, There is between a 1% and 9% chance that an attempt at a chemical abortion will fail (.2% chance when having the suction abortion procedure done).

Do we understand the term "failed abortion"? It means that a child has survived the attempt to kill it in utero, so not only is the child being born into a situation where it was clearly unwanted, but he or she will feel the lifelong impact of disfigurement and/or chronic health issues as a result. If you have a strong stomach, check out this page to learn first hand about the impact something like this can have on a child's life:
http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html.

I'm not trying to ruin anyone's lunch, or day, but for those who throw the suggestion around so casually as an easy answer to how to handle the results of recreational sex, please at least educate yourself as to exactly what abortion entails.

If he didn't trust her he wouldn't marry her would he?

I married more quickly after she became pregnant and it lasted over 25 years... I think it is more about the individuals than the circumstance...

Here in Canada, we build housing complexes to house the poor, or unfortunate who have landed in financial trouble. We call these 'government housing'. They are little developments of townhouses and side by sides, completely filled with single parents who for whatever reasons, are not working, and collecting welfare.

So, a single Mom finds herself unemployed, and Dad has long ago left the scene, she is not getting any child support for her three children. She goes on welfare, and the government, with all thier good intentions, provides her with a low rent home to live in until she can get up on her feet. She raises her children alongside all the other people who are in the same boat. Seems rather innocent, doesnt it?

What did the government think would happen thirty years later? Of course MOST of the children raised in this development think that it is completely normal to have kids, be on welfare and live in government housing. Why would they NOT think it is normal, it is normal for them. Every adult they enountered growing up in thier very own neighborhood lived this way, and that child is surrounded by these people as role models.

Add to the fact the stigma is pretty much gone, and you have a self fullflling prophecy-we have taught an entire generation that it DOES pay to stay home, not work and bonus-the more children you have, the bigger the monthly check.

And we wonder why the numbers are increasing? PUHLEEZE!

Easy to say its on the woman to prove paternity, easy done if the man is willing, however what to do in the case of the one who says not my child and no I am not submitting to a test even when its court ordered....

If you want to get really stupid about qualified/unqualified recipients, I say childless women who get pregnant should be disqualified too. It should be a woman's responsibility to make certain an able bodied and financially secure man knocks them up.... why should we pay childless women for getting pregnant by a loser ?

*blink* *blink*

What?

My first question is: Men actually SAY that?

My second question is: And there are women who believe it?


I can't possibly imagine it comes off as any more believable as some of the "lines" that stand-up comedians might mention guys try on women... and the only reason the comedian's mentioning them is because they're so obviously TERRIBLE lines that would result in, at the least, an eye-roll.

I can't believe anyone hearing that line would believe it to be anything beyond a horny guy desperately trying to say anything he thinks the woman wants to hear just to get into her pants....

But, as I've stated before . . maybe I'm just a cynic...

No one seems to give a crap that maybe some of these men should be ditching that woman and making her life miserable because was it his fault the child came to be?
It means nothing because now we have it set up so that matter how that kid got here a man has no means to prove he was wronged, ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!

You don't think that there women out there who aren't aware of the possibilities?

Since none of you ladies have ever been the payor of cs what the fuk do you know about how the system works? Something you read about in crap story in the paper or a biased news report? You have no clue.
At my court date to stop the suspension there was offer of a deal no special circumstances zip, so don't try and make statements you can't back up.

And can any of you ladies state without lying to yourselves that if your sister in law got caught pulling this crap or your son's wife that you wouldn't be muttering "whore" under your breath. You'd want her sent to jail but would be as shocked as those guys that she's gonna walk scott free.

After listening to some of you ladies it makes the guy who postal at McDonalds look like he might do some of us a favout if you guys happen to be there when the first shot rings out. Hypocrites.

When it comes to what happens after a pregnancy, I do think that men should be given the option of not assuming responsibility for the child because women can choose to abort, men can't force a woman to abort. Just as a mother can choose not to inform the father and place the child up for adoption, the "father" could choose to allow the mom to assume 100% of the rights/responsibilities for a child they do not want, in essence, the mom adopts the child entirely and "dad" is let off the hook.

I'd like to see a source for this statistic!

That would mean I have "caused the death of" 12 possible lives! I don't friggin' think so!!! Show me the source!

I agree with you, Coffee woman. As tempting as it is to find someone to help pay the bills and raise your kids, I think it's the stepparent thing that can really screw them up. One conversation I had with a single father really confirmed this: He told me point blank he was looking for a younger woman without kids, because a) she could produce another child for him that was HIS and b) he didn't want stepchildren, because he felt like a male gorilla coming into a new pack. Male gorillas, he said, kill the baby gorillas that aren't theirs, so their authority isn't challenged. OK! At least he was honest.

A step-parent has no genetic stake in the off-spring of another man, indeed they divert resources from his own offspring.

people with good jobs, and in two parent families have just of much of a chance of bringing up a child to be a misfit as those that are single.

Examinations of academic outcomes, deviant behavior, and sexual behavior all show that children in two biological parent families do better than children in stepfamilies or single-parent families.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/4/0/7/p184075_index.html


The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html


Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, using evidence from four nationally representative
data sets, compared the outcomes of children growing up with both biological parents, with
single parents, and with step-parents.6 McLanahan and Sandefur found that children who did not
live with both biological parents were roughly twice as likely to be poor, to have a birth outside
of marriage, to have behavioral and psychological problems, and to not graduate from high
school. Other studies have reported associations between family structure and child health
outcomes. For example, one study found children living in single-parent homes were more likely
to experience health problems, such as accidents, injuries, and poisonings.7
Of course, most children in single-parent families will not experience these negative outcomes.
But what is the level and degree of risk for the average child? The answer depends on the
outcome being assessed as well as other factors. For example, McLanahan and Sandefur reported
that single-parent families had a much higher poverty rate (26 percent) than either two-parent
biological families (5 percent) or step-families (9 percent). They also found that the risk of
dropping out of high school for the average white child was substantially lower in a two-parent
biological family (11 percent) than in a single-parent family or step-family (28 percent).8 For the
average African American child, the risk of dropping out of high school was 17 percent in a two-
parent family versus 30 percent in a single- or step-parent family. And for the average Hispanic
child, the risk of dropping out of school was 25 percent in a two-parent family and 49 percent in
a single- or step-parent family.
Up to half of the higher risk for negative educational outcomes for children in single-parent
families is due to living with a significantly reduced household income. Other major factors are
related to disruptions in family structure, including turmoil a child experiences when parents
separate and/or re-couple with a step-parent (including residential instability), weaker
connections between the child and his or her non-custodial parent (usually the father), and
weakened connections to resources outside of the immediate family—that is, other adults and
institutions in the community that the non-custodial parent may have provided access to.9
When controlling for other differences in family characteristics, such as race, level of parents’
education, family size, and residential location, McLanahan and Sandefur found little difference
in outcomes for children according to whether the single-parent families were a result of non-
marital births or divorce. However, children of widowed parents do better than children of other
types of single-parent families with similar characteristics.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:pQg5UmeJH2oJ:www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf+children+better+outcomes+two+parents+vs.+single+parent+household&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh86o7i33V6ndzCs-QA9SPsvVwu9hqaEccxOrfMiITANAy0kUM26XOWJUz4mGWEvZ6QA6TdkoKBWgOxp5pMbwnklG8CAC8h8xQWryMf4a1B4LCDa1RFDjdNHbyFAlv-d2_TNkWF&sig=AFQjCNH0HgnbOhmTqH5MdKu7nh_3MAuPdg

It's been shown statistically that the lowest of the low income earners and the highest of the high income earners have relatively the same suicide rate.

Given that tidbit of information, I wouldn't support your friends theory. Given the divorce rate is 60% (irrespective of income class),

I don't think family happiness and/or contentment can be measured, or prejudiced, as per the contents of your home and garage.

The only problem with that logic is that stability financially and otherwise is subjective. How much does one need to earn in order to be stable? There have been many times over the years that my finances could have been better but my kids have never gone without anything.

Glad to hear that she is going for birth control and good for you that you are going with her.You can be part of the solution.

My daughter, who is seventeen, just started on birth control. I told her that she has to pay for it. (Even with our insurance, it's $40 a month.) Yes, I could afford to pay for it for her but I wanted her to see that she has to take responsibility for her choices and actions. And, no, I wouldn't let her go without it if she didn't have the money.

The problem is now I'm doubting myself. Should I stick with this plan? or just toss in the towel and pay for it??

I couldn’t agree more!






Neither would I lynaudio, but we are in the extreme minority! Sadly, I think many women “accidentally” get pregnant in order to force a relationship and/or get child support.

u seem like a lovely person but as i got to the bottom... i actually am discusted by yr comment about single mothers im one, sum of us cant help what happens in life.. and ive never used any man as a doormat yr opinion is extreamely pig ignorant and rude good luck yr gonna need it!!!!!

Otis and I have had our struggles, with each other, with parenting our daughter but I can tell you that since November when he ceased all physical discipline with our daughter, her behaviour has dramatically improved. I do believe it was our daughter telling him how she felt that was the reason he stopped but maybe it was only part of it. Perhaps my incessant harping on the issue of physical discipline was also part of it.

I hope that in 8 years I'm not aching to kick my kids out. When I got pregnant I knew I had signed up for the job a lifetime, and it was going to last my lifetime.
I feel bad for any kid who learns that their mom doesn't want them home anymore.

ANY parent that hasnt prepared their offspring to be OUT ON THEIR OWN by the age of 18, is guilty of child neglect and abuse. You've SEVERELY handicapped them for the entire rest of their lives as badly as if you had burned them, kept them out of school, severely injured them, or abused them.

YOUR thinking has gotten this country into the mess it's in.

Maybe off topic but has anyone else had problems cringing while reading some of these posts and the horrendous spelling and grammar coming out of people who are raising children...My god...how can you expect your children to go out THERE and earn a living if THEIR education is inadequate? You, as a parent should be supplementing their education if the schools are not proving adequate! MAYBE we should all just sit around collecting child SIPPORT from the Gubment!

FShock, I find it interesting that you agree that a parent should be with the child in the early years. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you agreed with. The reason I find it interesting is that you qualify that agreement (assuming of course you agreed with me on that part) with something along the lines of children born to women who collect welfare should not have the same opportunity to be with their mother in those early years. I guess then it is only a perk for those than can afford it in your eyes, in which case I have to say I find that disturbing. If it is a good thing for children, it is a good thing regardless of the financial means of the parent, no?

Your statistics about education are biased I'll tell you why. Because older men often are interested in younger beautiful women.

There are still some women who are brought up with thinking "i want to be a stay at home mother". Is that a bad thing? It's what women did for centuries.

I just have to say that it is truly sad that there are so few men out there that believe that children should be cared for in the early years by a parent. There are women still who will gladly put their careers on hold to care for children. I haven't known many women who were happy or content to put their babies into daycare so they could go back to work. Besides, who says it has to be the woman to stay home and care for the babies? It could just as easily be the man who opts to be a SAHP for the early years.

After spending several months reading the forums and putting in my 2 cents worth as I feel the need, I have noticed one thing. And to me it is kind of a big deal. A lot of people on these forums use the term single mother, when in fact they are referring to an unwed mother, or a crack ho welfare momma, or a widow, or any other number of types of women. And I have also noticed that some single mothers (myself included in some circumstances) hate to be lumped in with a generic term used to describe every mother in here. So I am wondering what the chances are of us using the labels we actually mean.

There is a huge difference between a woman that went out, had a one night stand, and got pregnant, and accepted that responsibility, and someone that was married for however long and had children as part of that marriage, and a widow. I am not judging anyone. I know everyone has their own circumstances. But is it possible to stop lumping every single one of us together. If you are talking about mothers that sit at home and abuse the social services that are offered, then don't say "single mothers sit around and........" If you are talking about the mothers that had a one night stand, or a relatively short relationship don't say "all single mothers.........", etc. etc.

And let the flaming begin.....................................

I say the only thing to judge a single mother is not by the choices she made because who carred if she was married or not married because its just a piece of paper it doesn't mean a lot to some people. But rather what kind of mother is she? How does she provide for her child(ren) that is how the woman should be judged.

Sweetness, I have no idea where you get the idea that I am some kind of a slut just because my son's father walked out on us? I guess you are a slut too since your daughter's father walked out on you as well. Truth is, I have only been sexual with 2 men in my whole life, so I really do not think I am being a slut. I am sure you have probably slept with more people then I have. So I am not a dog, I knew who my son's father was, he made the choice to have the DNA test to make himself feel better. He thought it was a last ditch effort to get one last hit at me in the public eye.

I don't want the Government to chase men down to get back with the women, are you blind? Its about making them responsible for the child, if not physically, then financially. I would never want my ex back with me.

There are cultures and religions who believe marriage is bonded by trust, that the bond is implicit. There are religions who believe the government has no right to govern their bodies. Old order Mennonites and Amish don't consent to their children receiving vaccinations. Some religions believe science goes against god. To force DNA testing would be a violation of their right to their religious and cultural beliefs.

"my kids don't need a father, they already have one" is also saying.. I've had a husband and I don't want another.

file for 100% custody for cheating??? Even if it was true and proven - something the legal system certainly won't do in America - this would essentially punish the child for a choice one parent made. Let me make myself clear: the child needs BOTH his parents. This is critical to his secure development, unless there is child abuse. From the child standpoint, who gives a wack about who cheated who or why? These are all irrelevent to a chikd's needs and the love and attachment he feelsto both parents. You will never get full custodyof a child by arguing over your ex cheating - and there is a good reason why: it's NOT in the best interest of the child.

Splitting up the family is worthless and foolish..... it accomplishes nothing but grief and hardship.

Well this question is easy.

My ex wife is a child molester. She taught 9th grade science and had an affair with one of her students.

Jason