The city and the state should be responsible for their levees, not the feds. I'm sure in the past 80 years they could have coughed up enough money to fix/repair or build them. And the levees failing the day after the storm was just one problem, the entire states of LA and MS were hung out to dry after Katrina.

When the mother heard the story, she ran outside, picked up a pipe on the street and confronted her daughter's alleged assailant, a man she said she knew from around the neighbourhood, who was still in the park.

Mother should have educated her daughter tha tshe shouldn't be near stranger.

Maybe not a break but they can sit down when they want to. All you have to do is sit down to watch your kids I do not have that luxury. Kids also take naps so that is an hour that you do not have them. Going to the store, taking kids to doctors. Does it make your life busy? Sure. Is it hard heck no. I would love to spend a day watching kids instead of going to work.

Pot stays in your hair for quite a long time, there's absolutely no way to get rid of it

HAIR TESTS: An ominous new technology is hair testing, which is supposed to detect drug use for months, or however long one's hair has been growing (Skinheads note: samples can be taken from any part of the body!). While hair tests are highly sensitive to cocaine, their sensitivity to pot is not well established. Not all employers who use hair tests check for marijuana. Hair testing is racially biased against Africans, being much more sensitive to thick, dark hair than to light, fine hair. Although the FDA and scientific community have been critical of hair testing, that hasn't stopped employers from using it. Hair tests may be influenced by shampoo: one test found hair treated with Head & Shoulders® (Fine/Oily), Neutrogena®, and Rave® displayed lower drug concentrations than with Pert® (Oily/Fine) or Prell® (Normal, Normal/Oily).

Admit to a lie? No, I wont do that!
Apparently you didnt understand me, I didnt buy the leash....my former father-in-law, got it second-hand. He was the kind of man who bought used first, and new hardly ever.
So how could I have taken back something I had no receipt for? Sheesh give me a break!

I am sure even the parent's who do use a harness (as it is not a leash it is around the child's neck NO!)

1 a: a line for leading or restraining an animal b: something that restrains : the state of being restrained

The wrist type leash I used was not bought by me, my former father-in-law got it someplace and knowing him he didnt pay much, anyway....so as to the comment that the leash cost just as much as an umbrella stroller, you are mistaken at least in my case.

In terms of price...I just got a new monkey backpack style (I found what I wanted while shopping online the other day). It was only 8.99 on sale at Target. Yes, that is cheaper than the cheapest of umbrella strollers, and it lasts so much longer!

Come on it is not hard. Sure you may be busy but that does not make it hard. Plus you can always take a break and sit down if you want to. When you have a job you can not do this. If you want to work hard try doing what I do work in a hot warehouse for 8 hours.

i have my lip and my septum, both pierced at a 14.

as of now, ive had my septum done for 4 weeks, and my lip for 3 months

Rather than hurt or judge this woman who has probably had enough hurt and pain with what happened to her daughter, I would like to see this thread become a lesson for others. This woman originally was worried a single man moving next door would be a child predator (which incidentally I thought was ridiculous), and completely missed what was happening in her home by someone she knew and trusted - unfortunately, the latter type makes up most pedophiles. She made a mistake, came back to her thread to post what had happened, and admitted her mistakes. Giver her a break here, and perhaps try to HELP the situation and guide the thread to a place where something can be learned from it.

I was on a very, very fixed income, and it took a month at least to be able to get a stroller, even the cheap one,

OP ... Do what you are comfortable with ... and to heck with what other "busybodies" think. It's not thier child that could get lost, abducted, or run out in front of a vehicle!

What questions? Were you the one who said but then there will be more women on welfare? I think you've gotten quite a few responses. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less valid. You really haven't stumped anyone, I assure you.
On the other hand, I'd love for all the straw men to disappear and the rest of the people who don't support the opt-out to straight up answer the question.
If we can choose to opt out of parenthood after conception, why should men be held to a higher standard?

I think a lot of people allow phones to rule the way they live their lives and allow people to interfere in what they are doing more often than they used to.
Like if you go to the gym. I see people yapping on the phones all the time rather than working out. I don't understand how someone can stop their routine to yap about something totally unimportant rather than check the phone after the workout and call back.
Personally I think a lot of people make themselves look like idiots by not being able to leave that phone behind for even a quick trip to the loo or to pay for gas.
What if someone called right then during those few minutes and you can't answer? Can't have that...can't let it go to voice mail and call back. I find it ridiculous.

come on ladies...re-read my message # 894 and instead of ignoring it because it's impossible to argue with...take a crack at it.

The same one woman is still disagreeing with all of you and not one of you can admit that it's wrong...after 37 pages???

condoms fail too frequently.

# The law in parenting is entirely one sided in favour of mothers and women.
# Men have no rights whatsoever when it comes to children.
# Women control all aspects of birth control.
# Only they know when they are ovulating.
# Condoms are unreliable.
# Women have been known to retrieve the sperm from a condom in order to get pregnant.
# Women have been tricking men into marriage and support by getting pregnant since Eve.
# Women who decide to get pregnant can easily obtain a lifetime of child support from the man they target.
# The fact that the sire/father did not want a child is not even considered by the courts. This is dead wrong and does not reflect today's reality.
# Women have the ability to control when and if they get pregnant. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.
# Women have the ability to control whether or not to carry the foetus or abort. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.
# Women have the ability to keep the child after birth, or give it up for adoption. Men do not, but they will still have to pay child support or go to jail.

I correct those who say I'm childless because I'm not. I'm childfree.

'Roe v. Wade For Men' Suit Filed
NEW YORK, March 9, 2006(AP) Contending that women have more options than men do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court will probably rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

With regards to staying at home, that was your choice.

But then there is volunteer work at the school.....and the local agency...getting to the health club.....and keeping the house clean...and driving the children....all of which the single parent who works also manges to accomplish.......but I doubt they will be saying or suggesting how much harder it would be to stay at home and not work?

And I don't see men being able to opt out anytime soon. That's what this thread is about, opinions and ideals. Although, if you want to argue that welfare ideals are irrelevant in this thread, then the fact that someone needs to support a welfare mom's babies is irrelevant and should be left out as well.

I was under the impression that not having a job meant unemployed.

I'm not. I've said at least twice in this thread that its irresponsible and incredibly selfish for any person or couple to bring a child into the world that they are not mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially able to take care of. It is irresponsible and selfish to expect anyone to pick up the slack for choices you chose to make. It is not anyone else's responsibility to pay for that child when they are not the one who decided to have that child.

What does being an unemployed mother have to do with opting out?

Maybe I'd just do more work under the table. Maybe I'd become a bigtime drug dealer or a hitman. It's all hypothetical, right?